Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Trade Union Residential Courses

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to make a statement about granting financial assistance towards trade union residential courses held in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I discussed trade union education with representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 21st January and I am considering how it will be possible for my Department to give assistance direct to the STUC to supplement the grant already available to the TUC for this purpose under the existing arrangements.

Mr. Small: Ego, de meo senso judicio—in my judgment, that is a helpful answer.
We are living in an era lacking a past. The reason for my Question is the new dimension in Scotland arising from the complexities of the oil situation. To that degree, national leaders should be reinforced by educational resources in Scotland applied to that new dimension, so that they may negotiate in terms of the requirements of a modern society. To that end, can my hon. Friend tell me what the STUC's estimate is of the initial requirements for such a project?

Mr. Speaker: May I request other hon. Members not to feel that they must explain their question as well as ask it?

Mr. McElhone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me early notice

of that quotation. Suffice it to say that it does not guarantee him an early place in the trade union college.
The amount that the STUC hopes to get for next year is about £26,000. That would cover the residential courses for a year. As I said earlier, I met the STUC last Friday and explained that certain legal and administrative difficulties arose on the question of doing this but that we were looking at the problem and hoped to get round it. We would then try, for one year only, namely, 1977–78, to meet the sum required.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Minister take all possible steps, in respect of trade union courses, to ensure that the proposed EEC trade union institute should come to Glasgow, the cradle of industrial democracy? We have seen many institutions go to other countries in the EEC. Could not the Minister try to get this one for Glasgow?

Mr. McElhone: That is a most interesting suggestion. I shall certainly examine it and report back to the hon. Lady.

Dr. Bray: Will my hon. Friend say what response he has had to the valuable proposal that he made in his recent letter to hon. Members on the question of industrial relations training in our schools in Scotland?

Mr. McElhone: I raised this matter with the STUC, which was unanimous in supporting the scheme. I also met the Schools Industry Liaison Committee, on which members of the CBI and STUC serve. The members of that committee were at one in saying that they fully supported the principle of teaching industrial relations, albeit that the opinion is that we must also concentrate on the core curriculum. The matter has now gone to the CCC—that is, the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum—because we do not control the curriculum in schools. That committee will consider the suggestion shortly.

Mr. Sillars: Will my hon. Friend confirm that although Government money is involved there will never be any sign of interference in the content of courses run by the STUC?

Mr. McElhone: I give that assurance to my hon. Friend.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effects he expects the withdrawal of the regional employment premium to have on the employment potential and profitability of Scottish firms.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The withdrawal of REP will result in a small loss of employment in Scotland over this year. However, the Government expect that any such loss will be more than offset by additional jobs provided by the further measures to encourage industry and employment, which were announced at the same time as the decision to withdraw REP.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he is a member of the Government—with responsibility, in this case, for Scotland—who have just produced an economic package that bears more hardly on Scotland than any other part of the United Kingdom, due to the withdrawal of REP'? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this may not be unrelated to the fact that the highest percentage rate of unemployment increase has just been announced for Scotland?

Mr. Millan: I do not accept that description of the December package. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government intended to withdraw REP in the autumn of 1974.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Secretary of State telling us that he had made no assessment of the financial impact on firms in Scotland of the withdrawal of REP, carried out so suddenly and without notice? Is he aware that industry requires to plan over a longer period than simply the next eight weeks?

Mr. Millan: I did not say that we had made no assessment of the impact. What I said in my answer was that we made an assessment that this, by itself, would be bound to result in a certain loss of jobs. But it had to be taken in conjunction with the other measures that were announced in December.
As for the REP specifically, the studies that have been made of that as a regional incentive, including one by the House of Commons Expenditure Committee in

1973, suggest that compared with other regional incentives this was not a particularly effective way of attracting and retaining industry.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures of unemployed in my constituency, announced this week, are the highest for 10 years? Was it not also stated that when REP was withdrawn it would be replaced by something that would be equally effective? Can my right hon. Friend tell me that this is so?

Mr. Millan: On the last point, my hon. Friend, I think, is overlooking the fact that the Government have announced and introduced many other employment-retaining measures, including, for example, the temporary employment subsidy and the job creation scheme. These and other schemes, taken together, have already saved about 43,000 jobs in Scotland. So it is not true that REP is the only measure that the Government have taken to help Scotland.
I expressed yesterday to the House, and I express again today, my extreme concern about the very high level of unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Secretary of State has made calculations of the effect of his measures, will he publish them, because, as he will be aware, on 11th January the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his reply to me said about the measures announced in December:
No separate estimates have been made of the effects on employment in Scotland." [Official Report, 11th January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 470.]
Is the Secretary of State not ashamed that, while we have had the announcement of the appalling unemployment figures, he has sat in the Cabinet and agreed to the withdrawal of the REP, which will take £60 million a year from Scottish industry, as well as to national insurance surcharges that will add £100 million to its costs?

Mr. Millan: I have already said that Opposition Members intended to withdraw REP as far back as 1974. If they had intended to replace it with something else, they did not let the House or anyone else know what that new measure was. In fact, there was a definite commitment on their part to withdraw the REP


in the autumn of 1974. It was this Government who retained the REP as one of their regional employment measures at that time. I have made certain calculations, so far as I can, about the effect of the various measures on Scotland. I would simply rest on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said for the United Kingdom as a whole as also applying, as far as can be estimated, for Scotland, namely, that the net effect of the measures announced in December will be a small additional increase in employment in Scotland.

Unemployment

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had over the past six weeks with the CBI and TUC relating to the level of unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the STUC.

Mr. Millan: With my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other colleagues I met the STUC on 8th and 9th December. I have at present no plans for a further meeting.
The CBI has not recently approached me for similar discussions.

Mr. Monro: Are not the post-war record unemployment figures a devastating condemnation of the Labour Government's policy? Will the Secretary of State tell us just how many new jobs—and I emphasise "new jobs"—the Scottish Development Agency has provided in the past 12 months?

Mr. Millan: On the general question, I would simply say that it is absolute humbug for Opposition Members, who have been calling for massive cuts in public expenditure and who voted against the Chrysler operation, now to shed crocodile tears about the level of unemployment in Scotland. If they can demonstrate to me and to the House how the savage cuts in public expenditure and the other measures that they have advocated would help to save employment in Scotland, I shall be ready to listen to them with some respect. But at the moment I am not.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's view that the

withdrawal of the REP will have an effect on unemployment, will he also take into account the fact that the decision to withdraw it on 2nd January was published only in a Written Answer and was not notified to the firms until very close to 12th January, the last date for which they are allowed to claim in arrear? Will he undertake to convey to the Treasury that payment of late claims should be sympathetically considered, since this will affect very seriously the prospects of families in my constituency?

Mr. Millan: I shall certainly look at that, but I think that it has been the general practice in any case for the REP to be paid a little later than the actual period to which my hon. Friend refers. We expect in the normal course of events to be paying the premium until the end of March. I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Henderson: In the absence of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of the timetable also, which is raised by my Question No. 32 referring to discussions with the STUC? What explanation will he give to the STUC for the rise in unemployment to 183,000 in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: I have had numerous meetings with the STUC, and the Under-Secretary met it only last Friday. I think that it understands the Government's position on this matter very well.

Mr. Buchan: When he met the STUC did my right hon. Friend raise the question of the heavy electrical engineering industry in Scotland? Is he aware of the immediate crisis that we are facing, for example, in Babcock and Wilcox, and will he press, as a matter of extreme urgency, for the immediate ordering of the Drax B project and for at least one other power station to be phased forward?

Mr. Millan: I recognise the urgency of the point that my hon. Friend has made. It was one of the matters discussed with the STUC at the December meeting. We are certainly hoping to be able to make an announcement on the future of the power plant industry very soon now.

Mr. Younger: The Secretary of State cannot shrug off his responsibility for the disastrous unemployment figures. Is he


not aware that every economic commentator has agreed that if the right hon. Gentleman had made smaller cuts in public expenditure two years ago than he is being faced with today we should not be in this position? Is he asking the House to believe that the Government's adverse measures on industry—high interest rates, national insurance levy, increased taxation and the other increased burdens that have been put on every business in Scotland—have had no effect in producing this disastrous level of unemployment?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that measures of the kind which the Opposition are advocating to the Government, such as the reductions in public expenditure, are bound to have an absolutely disastrous effect on unemployment in Scotland. With regard to the general economic situation, there has been a considerable improvement in the position of the pound over recent weeks. We have been able to reduce the minimum lending rate from the peak of 15 per cent. to 13¼ per cent. We are expecting investment in manufacturing to increase, and there are increasing signs of a growth in business confidence, as I know from many meetings with industry in Scotland.

Mr. Monro: In view of the incredibly incompetent reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the fishing industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of fish stocks available to the Scottish fishing industry in 1977; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the inshore fishing industry in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): My right hon. Friend and I are always available to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss specific or general questions and in fact have had meetings

with them on a number of occasions in recent months.
The prospects for the fishing industry depend upon a successful outcome of the discussions in the European Community on various issues relating to the common fisheries policy. Nevertheless, it is satisfactory that the economic position of the industry in Scotland improved substantially in 1976, and I am hopeful that, despite uncertainties about future fishing levels, this welcome trend will continue.

Mr. Sproat: Is the Minister aware of the deep discontent in the industry over the way in which the Government are allowing fishing matters to drift? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State's conservation measures, announced the other day—good as far as they go—are totally inadequate, and that what is needed is a much tighter control over industrial fishing and over the activities of individual and freezer trawlers?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman's alliteration is good—"deep discontent" and "drift"—but the content is poor. If he was not present, he should re-read the statement made by my right hon. Friend last week. There was general acceptance that we were on the right lines with regard to priorities on conservation measures.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In what way did the hon. Gentleman attempt to answer Question No. 16? Is he not trying to hide his own incompetence in standing up for the fishing industry by trying to give one answer to a series of different Questions? Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Under-Secretary that, if he is prepared to stand up—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the time for speeches. It is Question Time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I wish that the hon. Gentleman would attempt to answer the Questions in the first place. Will the hon. Gentleman be assured that he will have the support of the Opposition if he will stand up with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in protecting British interests in the North Sea?

Mr. Brown: The one thing I congratulate the hon. Member on is that he, at least, has the guts to criticise me in the House, unlike some of his hon. Friends


from non-fishing constituencies. But he, better than anyone else—I have complimented him in the past on the marginal efforts that he put in at the time of the Treaty of Accession—should know that we have been left with this negotiating position because of his Government's incompetence.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the fishing industry cannot survive, let alone thrive, in the present uncertain conditions, and will he seriously apply himself to giving the industry some reassurance about its prospects in the immediate future and the date on which the Government intend to complete their negotiations on the new common fisheries policy?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, who is very knowledgeable in European matters, will know that he has not convinced one member of any Christian Democratic Party in Europe of the merit of 50-mile exclusive limits.

Mr. Fletcher: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman shaking his head and trying to shrug off the political atmosphere in which we are conducting debates in the EEC in general terms. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Government are aware of the uncertainty because of these interim arrangements. In the light of statements made by both of my right hon. Friends last week I am confident that we are making progress, and that is understood by the fishing industry.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware of EEC proposals to lift Customs duty on certain species of prime fish? If he is, will the Government oppose that?

Mr. Brown: That is a separate matter, which has been reported in the Press only today, following a statement by the British Fishermen's Federation. All that I am prepared to say is that I agree with the general trend of the statement by the federation that we should use the economic power of the European Community in the interests of its members. If that means taking action against liberal imports, I personally am in favour of that.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: May I speak to the Minister about the lower end of the fleet, the smaller boats—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady may ask a question.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: May I ask the Minister whether he considers that the lower end of the fleet could be an easier matter in his negotiations than the upper end of the fleet? It does not cover all the constituencies in Scotland, but it concerns some—namely, boats of 50 feet to 65 feet or, alternatively, measured by 250 h.p. Is the Minister aware that Commissioner Gundelach is most sympathetic to the possibility that such boats should be totally exempt from quotas? Does he agree, therefore, that we could deal satisfactorily with that area of negotiation?

Mr. Brown: There are so many members of the SNP speaking on fishing policy that I am not clear whether that is an official statement on behalf of the party—[HON. MEMBERS "Answer the question."] I shall answer it. I must say that I have never heard the phrase "the lower end of the fishing fleet". I am not too clear what that means. But if it means, generally, the inshore industry—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: Then I do not know what the hon. Lady is talking about. If she is making a constructive comment, I shall give it the consideration due to it.

Local Authority Expenditure

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why it was necessary to introduce a new system of controlling local authority expenditure by means of block allocations to local authorities and granting them the discretion to decide their own priorities with regard to individual projects; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: The new system was introduced with the agreement of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It will give authorities more freedom to determine their own capital expenditure priorities and afford better control over total capital expenditure.

Mr. Hunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the block allocation scheme


appears to give him and his Department the opportunity to shed their responsibility with regard to allocations for certain projects, and that means that district councils will have the power to decide priorities? How will that effect Dunfermline's borrowing application for its sports complex? Can my right hon. Friend do something to grant a portion of the borrowing power requirement to enable Dunfermline to commence the first stage of the project?

Mr. Millan: The whole purpose of the new scheme is to allow priorities to be decided by local authorities and not by central Government. That is what local authorities want.
It is difficult to introduce the new scheme where the amount of capital expenditure is limited, but the authorities—I met them on this matter—specifically wish the scheme to go ahead despite the current difficulties. I could not, therefore, within the new allocations, set aside a part of an authority's allocation for a particular project.
If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue other aspects of this important project, which I know is very dear to him, perhaps he will do that with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Miss Harvie Anderson: As the discretion appears to mitigate against the increasing provision for the mentally handicapped, will the right hon. Gentleman watch the position closely to ensure that as much as possible is done in this needy held?

Mr. Millan: Hon. Members must accept that if I reduce central Government intervention—and incidentally, save staff when the scheme is in operation—and give local authorities the right to decide priorities I cannot be responsible for the individual decisions that a local authority makes.

Mrs. Bain: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern felt amongst the careers service people that this discretionary power for local authorities may mean a decrease in expenditure on this vital service at a time of high unemployment? Will the Secretary of State therefore undertake to issue a directive similar to the one issued last year in England and Wales, whereby expenditure

on this aspect is guaranteed at a minimum level?

Mr. Millan: Again, I think that my answer must be the same. The House has to decide whether it wants me to make all the individual decisions or to allow local authorities to make the decisions for themselves. I am constantly told that central Departments and the Secretary of State are interfering in matters that ought to be decided by local authorities. I have made an important step forward by taking central Government out of whole areas of decision-making and passing that responsibility to local authorities. That having been done, I cannot answer for individual local authorities.

Homelessness

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on homelessness in Scotland.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) yesterday. It is the Government's policy in Scotland strongly to encourage the local authorities and bodies concerned to develop close practical working arrangements for dealing humanely and effectively with homelessness and associated problems.

Mr. Cook: I accept that this encouragement represents progress, but does my hon. Friend recognise that Scottish housing authorities have a sad record of ignoring circulars on management matters, such as letting or the provision of sheltered housing? In view of past experience, would it not be wise to take advantage of the Bill currently before the House on this matter to give statutory authority to any code of practice that may be introduced, especially as that was recommended by the Morris Committee?

Mr. Brown: Yes, but, as my hon. Friend knows better than anybody else, we have had detailed consultations with the local authority associations in Scotland, and it is one of the differences that might work to our advantage in Scotland. We have always worked on the basis of getting voluntary agreement from the local authorities. I am not ruling out the question of legislation but, clearly, the


Government have no control over a Private Member's Bill, and we are considering what our attitude should be on this at the moment.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that he has been informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who is introducing his Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill next month, that in response to many representations from Scotland he intends to include Scotland within its ambit? In that circumstance, will he give the same helpful Government support to its provisions north of the border as his colleagues in the Department of the Environment have already promised for England and Wales?

Mr. Brown: As the right hon. Member knows, there are differences. I take it that he shares with me the view that when we have a Scottish problem we should tackle it in a Scottish way, based on our own experience. I had discussions with the right hon. Member's hon. Friend this morning, and I put him in the picture on the matter. I cannot give a categorical assurance that we shall want Scotland to be included in the Bill, but I have not ruled it out. We are now in discussion with the local authority associations.

Mr. Welsh: May I stress to the Minister that there is all-party support for the Private Member's Bill on housing the homeless, sponsored by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)? In view of past Labour Party and Government commitments that are being fulfilled in England, may I encourage him to bring this legislation into being for Scotland, too?

Mr. Brown: I know that, fortunately for the people of Scotland, the SNP does not control any housing authority in Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: It does.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend reminds me that I am incorrect. I had better put it in another way. There is nothing outstanding about the performance of the one or two housing authorities controlled by the SNP which would denote that that party has operated any more successfully than has any other authority on the problem of homelessness. The Labour

Party in Scotland gave no commitment to legislation, unlike the Government in England and Wales. There is, therefore, no breach of faith on our part concerning Scotland.

Perth

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Perth.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend plans to be in Perth in March, during the annual conference of the Labour Party in Scotland.

Mr. Crawford: In asking the Minister a question about the M90 motorway between Perth and Edinburgh, I place on record the fact that very little blame attaches to either himself or his Department for the delay in starting the construction of the road between Bridge of Earn and Glen Farg. He knows as well as I do that extraneous matters have intervened. Will he now, however, bring forward to 1978 the starting date for that gap on the M90 motorway between Bridge of Earn and Glen Farg?

Mr. MacKenzie: If the hon. Gentleman wants a specific answer to a question of that kind, he must table a specific Question.

Mr. Lipton: When the Minister next visits Scotland, will he investigate the extent to which gas explosions and gas leaks have taken place in that country and persuade the Scottish Gas Council not to follow the pernicious example of the English gas boards in charging people who report gas leaks to them?

Mr. MacKenzie: Both my right hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends at the Scottish Office are there every weekend, and, indeed, a great deal more often. My hon. Friend's point about gas explosions is, of course, a matter of great concern to us, and the procedures are currently being examined.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When at Perth, will the Secretary of State call at the successful Scottish enterprise, the General Accident Insurance Company, and ask that company whether it agrees with the Scottish Life Offices that the Scottish National Party's economic plans for independence


could ruin their business and put at risk many thousands of Scottish jobs?

Mr. MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend's time may not permit him to make such a visit during that weekend, but I think that the hon. Gentleman's point has been taken by all of us on the Government Front Bench.

Brussels

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official visits he has made to Brussels in the last 12 months.

Mr. Millan: I have been twice to Brussels and Luxembourg, and my predecessor also made two visits in that period.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that that is a fairly abysmal record? The withdrawal of the Scottish Commissioner from Brussels has caused great concern within Scotland. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, because of the removal of a Scot at the higher reaches of the Common Market and the fact that, statistically speaking, it may be many more years before one is reappointed to that position, he will give priority to attending whatever meetings at Council Minister level take place at Brussels to represent the Scottish interests until the Scottish Assembly takes over these direct links?

Mr. Millan: As far as I am aware, the Scottish Assembly is not taking over any direct links. George Thomson was not a Scottish Commissioner; he was a Scot who was a United Kingdom Commissioner.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish Ministers and Scottish regional authorities have created a very favourable impression in their work in the Commission? Might there not be a return ticket, as Commissioner Gundelach was a great success when he visited Bathgate in June, particularly with the shop stewards at British Leyland? Now that he has the sensitive agricultural and fishing portfolio, could not arrangements be made for perhaps two or three public meetings to explain these sensitive and delicate issues in public?

Mr. Millan: That would be a matter for Mr. Gundelach. I have already discussed

with Mr. Gundelach fishing problems as they affect Scotland.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Reverting to the first question that the Secretary of State answered, will he say—if and when a Scottish Assembly is established—when he or his office visualises exclusively representing Scottish interests in Brussels, or whether he sees the Assembly developing some sort of relationship comparable to that made by the German Länder?

Mr. Millan: Formal relationships will remain with the United Kingdom Government. No doubt the United Kingdom Government, as appropriate, will want to involve members of the Executive of the Scottish Assembly. Nothing in the Bill would exclude them from doing that. But the formal relationship will remain with the United Kingdom and there can be no question of the Assembly's being directly represented in Brussels in that way.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Minister aware how wide of the mark is the question put to him by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)? Is it not a fact that not only is the British judge in Luxembourg a Scotsman but that the British Ambassador to the Common Market is also a Scotsman?

Mr. Millan: Yes, I am well aware of that. Both are very estimable Scotsmen and do a good job. I have met them both.

Glasgow

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Glasgow.

Mr. Millan: On Friday 28th January 1977.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State, on Friday, take the opportunity of speaking to the CBI and the chambers of commerce and discussing with them the very real dangers that they see in the combination of the Government's economic policies and high rates doing great damage to industry and commerce in the city of Glasgow? Will he also, on Friday, be able to announce a new date for the beginning of the building of the Ministry of Defence office in Glasgow which, under this Government, has been


postponed several times and for which we now have no commencement date?

Mr. Millan: I shall not be seeing the CBI in Glasgow on Friday, but I shall be having lunch with a number of distinguished leaders of the Scottish business community. I am looking forward to that.
There is no change in the position on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs. The matter has been explained on numerous occasions, not least by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, on Monday of this week. Hon. Gentlemen in any part of the House should not call into question the Government's absolute commitment to the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Glasgow.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We are moving too slowly. I must press on.

Kintyre

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Kintyre.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the Minister appreciate that a visit to Kintyre would help to dissipate the impression held by many of my constituents that the Secretary of State does not exist? Does he agree that a visit to such an area would be a great boost to the morale of all his ex-supporters in that part of my constituency?

Mr. MacKenzie: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's attempts to put Questions to my right hon. Friend would, were they better phrased, succeed in securing some answers from my right hon. Friend himself. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the problems of Kintyre, and if they were put frequently enough by hon. Members in the House would be even more aware.

Industrial Development

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Cunninghame District Council's industrial development committee on industrial development; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The chairman of the district council wrote to me in November about the development of the Hunterston peninsula. The ore terminal that is under construction there, at a cost of £70 million, is expected to be operational early next year. BSC has now received outline planning permission for two direct reduction units costing £55 million, and it is hoped that these, too, will be operational in 1978.

Mr. Lambie: Does the Minister realise that his answer shows an extreme degree of complacency in view of yesterday's published figures on unemployment, which show that there are now 4,660 people unemployed in the Irvine, Kilwinning and Saltcoats areas of the Cunninghame district? Is it not time that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend took some positive steps to encourage oil companies to develop oil refining capacity in the Cunninghame district, as requested by the industrial development committee?

Mr. MacKenzie: The first point that I want to make is that my right hon. Friend and I are in no way complacent, as my right hon. Friend indicated a few minutes ago. I hope that when my hon. Friend is thinking about the problems of unemployment he will bear in mind the positive suggestions that have been made and the actions that have been taken by the Government in regard to industry schemes, selective financial assistance and issues of this kind.
Secondly, oil development is a matter on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) gave his views in 1974, and so far the oil companies have not taken the opportunity of asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a hearing on this matter.

Mr. Corrie: Will the Minister remember that Hunterston lies in the constituency of Bute and North Ayrshire and not in the constituency of Central Ayrshire? The people in that area have different views from those of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). Their real worry is that a petrochemical works could be put beside a nuclear power station.

Mr. MacKenzie: I am sure that no matter who makes the representations in the House, the point has been made to


the Government. We accept it and we shall do everything that we can to ensure that the Hunterston peninsula is developed in the best way possible to ensure the maximum number of jobs for the people in that part of Ayrshire.

Banking

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies the Scottish Economic Planning Department has made of the place of banking in the future economic development of Scotland.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The Government have always taken the view that the availability of satisfactory financial services is vital to the development of Scottish industry. We are in no doubt of the important contribution made by financial institutions in Scotland to industrial development and the Scottish economy as a whole.

Mr. Rifkind: Has the Minister's Department examined the curious banking policy of the Scottish National Party and, in particular, the extraordinary claim by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) that the banking community favours separatism and a separate Scottish Parliament? Is the Minister aware that following that claim leading members of the banking community in Scotland immediately declared that the Scottish National Party's policies would be disastrous for jobs, employment and prosperity in Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: I must say that if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) understands the financial and banking policies of the SNP I envy him very much, because in recent times I have tried to understand them—as others have—but I have concluded that I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. That view is well backed up by the recent pronouncement by important people in the banking world that the talk of a Scottish hound, and so on, would do irreparable damage to the Scottish economy.

Mr. Crawford: May I inform the Minister that the sub-committee appointed by the Committee of the Scottish Clearing Banks, when commenting on our financial policy, stated that the document was "well prepared"? May I ask him whether he would prefer to

have a strong currency, as we shall have in a self-governing Scotland, and low interest rates or the high interest rates of today? May I also tell him that if he is very good—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—he might be one of the candidates for Governor of the National Bank of Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman says that the statement was "well prepared". All I can say is that it must have been typed and issued in a better form than one sees in the usual Press notices issued by the SNP.
I am not quite clear about the present attitude of the hon. Gentleman and his friends, following the assurances that they have been giving to some of the British insurance companies, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) referred. I am not sure whether the statement that he is issuing now is the same as the one he issued in November. It is all a trifle confused. All I am certain of is that Scottish banking interests have already declared that they think that the hon. Gentleman's policy is nonsense.

Mr. Sillars: From a Socialist point of view, people in the Labour movement in Scotland have always been concerned about the rôle of the banks and investment institutions in lending their contribution to solving the problems of the Scottish economy. Is it not the case that if we are to overcome the economic problems and unemployment in the Scottish economy a Labour Government will have to take control of the banks and investment institutions and direct their capital into the country from which they draw it?

Mr. MacKenzie: We have already made our policy in this regard crystal clear. We believe that the best way of assisting industry is through the Industry Act and the Scottish Development Agency. The relationship that we have with banks and industry at present seems to me to be very satisfactory, and I do not think that there could be any great improvement in it.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish banks will shortly be facing severe demands from their customers, whose cash flow will be very


adversely affected by the abrupt withdrawal of the REP, as proposed by the Government? Does he recall that the Labour Party strongly objected to the previous proposal to phase out the REP when unemployment was below 100,000? Why is it now supporting a move to remove the REP overnight when unemployment is very nearly 200,000?

Mr. MacKenzie: My hon. Friend dealt perfectly adequately with these questions earlier. I can only repeat what he said, that we are naturally anxious to ensure that the money spent by the Government is used to the best possible advantage of the Scottish people, and the Chancellor's measures for schemes for improving industry, money for the SDA, and so forth, are a much better way of using money than was the REP.

A80 (Safety Standards)

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available adequate resources for improving safety standards on the A80.

Mr. MrElhone: A study of accidents on the A80 has been carried out, and my right hon. Friend is considering what measures to improve safety can be given priority.

Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister accept that that inquiry will be greatly welcomed by the people in my constituency? Will he give a guarantee that, whatever recommendations the Scottish Development Department comes up with in terms of improving safety standards on the A80, the Government will meet the expenditure necessary to ensure that no further lives are lost on this stretch of road?

Mr. MeElhone: I assure the hon. Lady that, while the accident record of the A80 is below the national average per trunk road mile, we are not complacent about the problem. We realise that it is serious. A number of improvements are being made, especially at Mollinsburn and Condorrat, where a number of accidents have taken place. I shall tell my noble Friend at the Scottish Office who has responsibility for roads that there is urgency about this. As far as I understand it, measures to relieve the particular right turn that is causing the problem are in the contract-letting stage for 1977-78.

Pigmeat

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the level of pigmeat production in Scotland in 1977.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I regret that no estimate of Scottish pigmeat production is available for the calendar year. The production of pigmeat in Scotland for the year to May 1977 is estimated to be 62,700 tonnes, representing an increase of 5,100 tonnes over actual production in the year to May 1976.

Sir John Gilmour: Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture on Thursday last week, of a 50p per score subsidy, will increase pig production and so save imports of pigmeat from EEC countries?

Mr. Brown: I am satisfied that it is enough to bring efficient producers back into reasonable profit, and, therefore, on the assumption that there will be a continuing expansion in production, yes, I think that it will.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister realise that "go nowhere" and "do nothing" replies this afternoon are worthy only of a resignation? As for increasing pig production, what specific steps is he taking to implement the findings of the Strutt Committee?

Mr. Brown: The power struggle in the SNP must be becoming very acute. The hon. Member may know something about raspberry growing, although I doubt it, but can I tell him that the subsidy that we announced last week is worth £3·50 per pig and is of considerable benefit to United Kingdom pig producers.

World Rheumatism Year

Mr. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what ways he intends to mark World Rheumatism Year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I understand that the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council (Scotland) is planning certain special events in 1977, and if any other interested organisation has plans to draw to my attention I shall be pleased to


hear from it. My right hon. Friend has no plans of his own in this connection.

Mr. Thompson: Is that answer not surprising in view of the fact that Scotland's weather, together with the deprivation in West Central Scotland, means that there is a higher incidence of these diseases in that area? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the Baird Street Centre for Rheumatic Diseases in Glasgow stays open the whole year, since that would be a most useful contribution to World Rheumatism Year?

Mr. Ewing: There are two questions there. First, it is not correct to say that the incidence of rheumatism is increasing. Records show that the incidence is decreasing. It is really out of character for the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) to become involved in the SNP's annual campaign about people dying, last year from hypothermia and this year because of the lack of renal dialysis treatment.
The question about the Baird Clinic is a local management matter. If a decision is taken to close the clinic for the Fair fortnight, it will be against a background of much less use during that fortnight in past years and, therefore, the uneconomic use of the available resources. However, in-patients would be transferred to the nearby Glasgow Royal Infirmary.

MEEHAN AND WADDELL CASES

41. Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Lord Advocate if he will place in the Library a copy of the report by Assistant Chief Constable Arthur Bell and Detective Chief Superintendent John McDougall on the Meehan and Waddell cases.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I do not propose to do so. At my instance Assistant Chief Constable Bell and Detective Chief Superintendent McDougall commenced a course of inquiries into the Meehan and Waddell cases and submitted several reports to me. In accordance with normal practice in the investigation of crime, such reports are not for publication.

Mr. Fairbairn: While I appreciate the Lord Advocate's position in giving that

answer, may I ask him whether he agrees that those reports contain many facts that are still unknown to the public and that, in some form or another, in the interests of justice must eventually be made known to the public?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman is tempting me to make a reply that is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has these matters very much under consideration.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Lord Advocate tell us when we may learn of any progress, either on his Hart or on the part of his right hon. Friend. in consideration of the Meehan case? It is now many months since Meehan was released from prison. An inquiry was promised, and the full compensation that is due is yet to be settled.

The Lord Advocate: Without accepting the comment that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, I stress that this is a matter for serious concern. He will appreciate that. It is not a matter in which a hasty decision can and should be made. I can say that my right hon. Friend has the matter under urgent consideration.

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the question of compensation to Patrick Meehan, does the Lord Advocate recall that on Meehan's own evidence he was indulging in criminal activity elsewhere in Scotland on the night of Mrs. Ross's death? Can he give an assurance that this will be taken into account when the amount of compensation is determined, otherwise there will be great resentment?

The Lord Advocate: That is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend, who will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Lord Advocate take account of the considerable public disquiet and say whether, in the reports available to him, it is within his knowledge that a Crown medical expert is suffering considerable worry because, in the Waddell trial, he was not permitted to disclose the fact that he had a near-identical case of ammonia being thrown into the face of a woman victim, who was tied up, and that the suspect


was "Tank" McGuinness? Is the Lord Advocate willing to say whether that information has been within Crown knowledge all this time? In the light of public disquiet, is it not time that we had a public inquiry?

The Lord Advocate: It would be inappropriate for me to make any comment, in confirmation or otherwise, on what the hon. Lady has said. The hon. Lady, as a practising lawyer, must be aware that there are such things as the rules of evidence. Unless courts are conducted according to the rules of evidence, it will be the end of British justice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Referring to the original Question, can my right hon. and learned Friend say how many inquiries his Department has conducted into this matter over the years?

The Lord Advocate: I am not in a position to say how many inquiries there have been, but it may be of assistance to my hon. Friend if I disclose to him and to the House the extent of the inquiries that have been made by my Department.
In May 1974, shortly after I came to office, I meticulously examined all the documents in the Crown Office relating to this case. I reached the view that there was no ground for my reaching a different conclusion from that of my predecessor as Lord Advocate, who had investigated the matter on his own behalf in 1970 and 1973.
In October 1974 I instructed further inquiries into the case and certain persons were precognosced by the Crown Agent on my behalf. In January and February 1975 he made further inquiries of the same general type. In September 1975 additional inquiries were made after I had received a pre-publication script of Ludovic Kennedy's book.
In November 1975 the Strathclyde police were asked to undertake on my behalf certain detailed investigations.
From then until March 1976 a series of inquiries were carried out on my behalf, either by Strathclyde police or by the Crown Agent. All these inquiries led to inconclusive results until March 1976.

TRAFFIC OFFENCES (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Thompson: asked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied that the police have adequate powers to bring to justice vehicle drivers from the Republic of Ireland and from Northern Ireland who commit traffic offences in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 18th June 1975, when I informed him that this matter was under active consideration by a Home Office committee. The committee has not yet completed its consideration of this problem.
The problem of citing accused persons in the United Kingdom generally was considered by the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure in Scotland and it recommended discussions to establish a simple method of citation that would apply throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Such discussions are now taking place.

Mr. Thompson: Is it not quite unsatisfactory that the Thomson Committee reported in October 1975 and that these discussions and negotiations are still going on? Is the Lord Advocate aware that in Dumfries and Galloway public respect for the law will diminish if so many offenders are seen to flout the law with impunity? Is he aware that this also will have an effect on police morale in that region? Will he undertake to consider carefully the report of the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway which has been sent to the Scottish Office?

The Lord Advocate: I have in fact read the report by the chief constable, and I found it useful. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that I am very well aware of the difficulties that arise in his constituency and elsewhere on this route, which has become the Euro-route between Ireland and the Continent. Therefore, it will grow in the future.
I also stress to the hon. Gentleman that the problems are very difficult to resolve. There are two aspects that he highlights in his Question. There is the aspect relating to Northern Ireland, on the one hand, and the aspect relating to the Republic of Ireland, on the other.
The problem relating to Northern Ireland is twofold. The problem for us is the problem of drivers who go to Northern Ireland and do not come back to face criminal charges. Equally, there must be a problem in Northern Ireland the other way round. It is a bilateral problem, and the solution would probably lie in a system of citation similar to that which Scotland enjoys with regard to England and Wales. But that requires considerable consultation and agreement, and also legislation.
In the wider field of international complications—the Republic of Ireland clearly comes into that category—we must wait for an international multilateral agreement. That would obviously take even longer, and we are bound to wait for legislation.
There are possible short-term expedients, such as detaining an offender until his charge can be dealt with, but as, in the vast bulk of the cases, we are considering relatively trivial road traffic offences, the public would probably rebel against such a heavy hammer.

Mr. Monro: Is the Lord Advocate aware that we must have action before the summer tourist traffic begins? Is he further aware that the road from Stranraer to the Scottish border is clogged with Irish container traffic throughout the year? Unless the police have some control over the Irish drivers this problem can only get worse. I feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answers today are far too complacent, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation.

The Lord Advocate: My answers must be couched with due modesty because in this aspect I am merely the public prosecutor. Whereas public prosecution has a rôle to play, I do not think that it can make a substantial contribution to controlling the vast load of traffic on that road—a load that is likely to increase.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In considering this urgent matter, will the Minister bear in mind, first, that whilst the Stranraer roads may be clogged with Irish drivers, the courts are clogged with motoring cases? Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes steps to add to that burden, will he look at the situation, particularly in the Glasgow Sheriff Court, where there are very long delays because of the clogging up of the courts?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful contribution. One must strike a balance in these matters. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Corrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a question with you? I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland at the appropriate time for answer today. I was sent a letter by the Scottish Office on 18th January saying that my Question had been transferred to the Secretary of State for Energy. My Question related to underground storage of nuclear waste. This morning I received a letter saying that it had been transferred back to the Secretary of State for Scotland but that it was for Written Answer on Monday. Surely it is totally unfair that a Back Bench Member should be denied the opportunity to put an Oral Question to the Minister in question in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that I cannot control the transfer of Questions between Ministers, but I hope that Ministers will have noted what has been said, because anyone would have a sense of injustice when the Question had been put down so early.

INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on industrial democracy.
The departmental committee of inquiry, which was announced by my predecessor on 5th August 1975 and which came into being during December of that year under the chairmanship of Lord Bullock, submitted its report to me on 14th December. I am arranging for it to be published today and copies have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.
The report of the Committee is not unanimous. There is a majority report signed by the chairman and six members of the Committee but with a note of dissent by one of the six. In addition, there is a minority report signed by the remaining three members. Nevertheless, I welcome the work that the Committee as a whole has done and I pay tribute in particular to its chairman, Lord Bullock, for the vast amount that has been accomplished in the course of 12 months. The Committee has greatly advanced the consideration of this complex subject by analysing the issues and clarifying the choices.
The majority of the Committee recommend the introduction of legislation to give employees a right to representation on the boards of companies employing 2,000 or more. This right would be triggered by an application from a recognised trade union, confirmed by a ballot of all employees. The reconstituted board would consist of three elements—that is to say, equal numbers of employee and shareholder representatives, who would co-opt a further small uneven number of directors. All directors would have the same duties and responsibilities. If the trade unions representing the employees, and the representatives of shareholders and management, agree that other arrangements to develop industrial democracy are more appropriate in their company, there is nothing in the majority report which would prevent the introduction of those arrangements.
The minority report favours the prior development of participation below board level and proposes that if employee representation is to be introduced it should

be on a supervisory board in a two-tier system. The employee representatives would not necessarily be selected through trade union machinery.
The minority report also criticises the terms of reference of the Committee, which presupposed a commitment to employee representation on company boards. I should therefore make it clear that the Government are committed, as we were when we set up the Committee, to a radical extension of industrial democracy by representation of the work force on company boards and to the essential rôle of trade unions in this process. The minority report would not be consistent with this approach. It is the Government's view—a view widely shared in Europe—that arrangements for joint decision-making at all levels, including board level, will represent a fundamental change which should make a major contribution to an improvement in labour relations and industrial efficiency.
The Government now intend to undertake consultations with the TUC and the CBI in order that as much common ground as possible may be identified. Other organisations will be able to express their views to the Government. We shall consult on the general basis of the recommendations contained in the majority report and we shall bring forward legislative proposals this Session. I very much hope that the consultations can take place in a positive and constructive atmosphere and with recognition by both sides of industry of the need to seek a lasting settlement.
The terms of reference of the Bullock Committee were confined to private sector companies: the legislative proposals will also cover companies in which the Government have a shareholding. The Government have also been giving separate consideration to the development of industrial democracy in the nationalised industries and have decided that employees in these industries should be given the right to representation at board level. Consultations about this will take place in parallel with the consultations on the Bullock Report, and the Government's conclusions will be embodied in the legislative proposals to which I have referred.
Special considerations apply to the development of participation in central


and local government. It is fundamental to the working of our democracy that elected representatives take decisions and act in the interests of the community as a whole. There are, however, many matters on which employees can legitimately expect to contribute their views. The Government have put in hand, and are continuing, a series of studies in consultation with the appropriate unions and management, into the scope for the extension of participation in the public services within the accepted principles which govern the operations of elected bodies.
The Government's aim is to see democracy extended from our political to our industrial life. That is an essential ingredient of the social contract. Just as political democracy has been accepted by all our people, so we believe that industrial democracy—at all levels from the shop floor to the board itself—will come to be regarded as part of the accepted fabric of our national life and open a new chapter in industrial relations and a continuing improvement in our industrial performance.

Mr. Nott: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and ask him the following questions? First, is he aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends share a commitment to extend the opportunities for people to participate in and influence the decisions of their own companies and the places where they work, so long as this involves all employees and not just the members of trade unions? It must, however, be part of an evolutionary process which is flexible between different companies and which stems genuinely from the shop floor up through companies rather than being imposed by legislation from the board down.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in our opinion, the majority report of the Bullock Committee is unrealistic and destructive? It is a political tract which makes a mockery of genuine democracy in British industry. Moreover, it would undermine most of the progress painstakingly made by the best companies over the last few years and will set genuine participation back by a decade.
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority proposals would further destroy the authority and the confidence of junior and middle management who look to career prospects in their companies based on merit rather than on the patronage of a trade union?
Finally, we noted the Prime Minister's comments yesterday that soundly-based progress in this important area can be made only by agreement with both sides of industry. The statement, however, is a denial of this position since it commits the Government to legislative proposals on the general basis only of the majority report. Is the Minister aware that the process of consultation which is now to take place can mean nothing unless it goes far wider than the majority recommendation and the original terms of reference of the Committee, both of which we utterly condemn?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has made the typical sort of exaggerated statement that precedes any major reform in this country which, when implemented, has been found, as has been found in Europe, to be a positive contribution to industrial relations and the efficiency of the operation of companies. It is particularly an exaggerated statement bearing in mind the emphasis in my statement on the need to find a lasting settlement. Nothing in my statement differs from or contradicts what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in reply to a question about the need for agreement if we are to get a lasting settlement. The object of the consultation is to seek agreement if that is possible.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's reference to the commitment of his party. It seems to be a commitment which is likely to reach effectiveness over so long a period that, fortunately, it will not be left to him or his party to implement it.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about trade unions, he will have observed that under the recommendations of the majority report no system of industrial democracy such as is recommended and about which we will consult can be implemented unless, first, there is a ballot of all employees of the company and, secondly, there has been a positive result supported by not less than 33⅓ per cent.


of the work force. That is the minimum qualification and a safeguard which goes beyond that provided in much of European legislation to ensure a minimum commitment to this process.
As for the need to impose this system by legislation, in Europe it has always ben necessary to make progress by legislation. The majority report is not unrealistic and unconstructive. One of the valuable things about the Bullock Report is that, as a result of consultations and discussions within that Committee, there has been some approximation of views between the two sides represented there, which gives me confidence that it will be possible to secure a lasting settlement of this problem based on agreement.

Mr. Radice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I and many of my hon. Friends consider that the Bullock Report is a well argued and constructive contribution to the debate and forms a basis for the Government's consultations? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to misleading leaks that have occurred over the past two weeks, Bullock is proposing an optional rather than a mandatory system—as my right hon. Friend has said, an optional system which must receive the support of the majority of employees in the company?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need a flexible system which makes room for participation agreements between managements and trade unions as well as providing for worker directors in both private and public industry?

Mr. Dell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the emphases of the Bullock Report is on the need for flexibility in this process, and, as I said, it would be possible within the proposals to develop flexible systems which, if necessary, would be short of representation of workers on boards of directors. Therefore, the sort of flexibility which my hon. Friend requires is provided for within the report.

Mr. Amery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of us on this side of the House have argued the case for participation from the shop floor to the board room over a number of years—indeed, in a period when the trade union movement was strongly opposed to it, and in my own case as early as 1948–49? Does he agree that there is a

very strong case for establishing the maximum consensus in this matter? Will he avoid committing the Government too strongly to any part of the detail of the Bullock Report, which is highly controversial, so that we may arrive at an agreed basis on which worker directors can be established?

Mr. Dell: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for those remarks. I remember that he himself welcomed the terms of reference when they were announced in the House. It is certainly our intention to achieve, if it is possible, the maximum consensus in developing this legislation. That is our view because we want a permanent settlement of this issue, not the sort of industrial relations legislation that was introduced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Certainly we intend to consult on the detail of the majority report of the Bullock Committee. Our commitment is in the terms of reference, which I have repeated today—that is, to the radical extension of industrial democracy by the representation of workers on the boards of directors. That is our commitment, and we shall consult further about the matter in the majority report, as well as the minority report, to attempt to find agreement on the basis for legislation.

Mr. Penhaligon: The Liberal Bench wants to see an extension of industrial democracy and has done so for about 50 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the question?"]—so the book tells us. Cannot the Minister appreciate that the idea of directors elected by trade union members only is simply not acceptable to the Liberal Bench? Could he let us know in detail why only three out of 337 submissions made to the Committee were considered? Also, what is the logic or the magic about the number 2,000 below which there will, apparently, be no democracy or hint of democracy at all?

Mr. Dell: It is for the Committee to say why it considers particular representations made to it. I am sure that it considered all the representations made to it, though, naturally, it does not refer to them all. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this process is confined to trade unions, I repeat that the system cannot be triggered without a vote to all the employees. As for the trade union channel which is recommended in the


report, in that matter too it is obviously necessary for the Government to consult so that we can find a basis of agreement there, if it is possible.

Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman is reneging on the statement.

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman says that I am reneging on the statement. That is obviously false. When he has studied the majority report, the hon. Gentleman may see that one of the suggestions made within the report is that the joint representation committee of trade unions might well decide that the appropriate way of selecting worker directors would be by a 100 per cent. vote of all the employees. That is one suggestion which is made as to a method by which that could be operated. This, too, is an area in which we shall have to consult.

Mr. Small: I accept the principle of the report. However, could the Minister enlighten me on the required alterations in the Companies Act in terms of existing company law and how this would affect the multinationals and the oil majors operating in the North Sea?

Mr. Dell: Some of the alterations in company legislation will affect the responsibilities of directors. Clearly, one point on which there was general agreement is that it is necessary to alter the responsibilities of directors to embody employees as well as shareholders. As to the effect of multinationals, the report makes certain proposals for the organisation of industrial democracy within multinationals. This is something that we shall have to consider, because, of course, we wish to continue to encourage inward investment in this country.

Mr. Madel: Is it a precondition of the Government's consultations to which the Minister has referred that industry and management must accept the statutory imposition of trade union or employee directors?

Mr. Dell: We have a commitment, and that commitment is justified not merely by the needs of this country but by experience elsewhere. So far as I know, every country which has developed along this course has found it necessary to do so on the basis of statutory provision.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Secretary of State accept that the contribution which we have had from Tory Front Bench Members shows that, however many discussions they may have with the TUC, they have totally failed to understand working people, and will he take it that there will be support for his idea that there should be the fullest possible consultation on this matter? In addition to consulting the CBI, the TUC and numerous other outside bodies, will he give an undertaking to consult other parties within the House in the preparation of the legislation?

Mr. Dell: I shall be glad to consult other parties in the House. The House will obviously have the final word on the legislation; the House alone has the veto on it. Of course, we shall be prepared so to consult.

Mr. Sedgemore: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the Government intend to stand firm against the industrial Luddites on the Opposition Benches? Will he call on the CBI and others who oppose these proposals to observe the decencies, the proprieties, the rule of law and the supremacy of Parliament during the coming clash?

Mr. Dell: We always resist the industrial Luddites on the Opposition Benches. We wish to enter into serious consultation with the CBI because we wish to find a consensus on the basis on which to make a lasting settlement of the problem.

Mr. Emery: Does the Secretary of State realise that he has used the term "commitment" a number of times in his answers? Does he realise also that there is a commitment from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to get the country out of its financial and economic problems, to see a greater working together of the CBI, management, workpeople and the whole of industry? Does he realise that the report, if adopted in the terms of the majority report, will go a long way to undermining that co-operation?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the last paragraph of the report refers to
The fears expressed in the nineteenth century in face of proposals to give more people the right to vote"?


In fact everybody, not just an exclusive few, was given the right to vote, which is immensely important.

Mr. Dell: It took a long time to persuade the Conservative Party in the nineteenth century of the need to give everyone the right to vote. I have already dealt with that point, and I have said that that will be an element in consultation. I believe that it is vitally necessary to reduce confrontation in industry. The development of industrial democracy will help so to do and thereby will help industrial performance. That is the reason why we are taking this legislation far more seriously than many Opposition Members seem to be taking it today.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister accept that Plaid Cymru regards the report as visionary in going to the heart of our industrial problems? Will he, however, accept that if there is discrimination, cutting out non-trade union employees, it could raise an unnecessary bogy since the vast majority are unionised anyway and, to that extent, it would be wiser to allow every employee to vote in any elections?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the threshold of 2,000 is much too high, implying that perhaps only 100 or so companies out of 3,000 in Wales will be affected, and compares with thresholds of, I believe, zero in Austria, 25 in Sweden and 100 in the Netherlands? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment, in referring to legislative proposals, that the Government will bring forward a Bill to implement the report, or a revised Companies Bill, during the present parliamentary Session?

Mr. Dell: On the last point, our commitment, as was said in the Gracious Speech, is to bring forward legislative proposals in this Session. I certainly hope that it will be possible to do that in the form of a Bill. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the time constraints. I note what he says about the system of representation which would operate to select worker directors. I have already indicated that this is a matter for consultation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the large number of hon. Members standing

up, it would be a very great help if those who were called would try hard to limit themselves to one question. That will increase the number that I shall be able to call.

Mr. George Grant: Few hon. Members will disagree with the objectives of industrial democracy, improved industrial relations, improved efficiency and improved productivity. Will my right hon. Friend take into account, however, the efforts of the previous Government to improve industrial relations? The message that I want to get across is that one can drive a horse to water but one cannot make it drink.
In the trade union movement there are many who want to retain the "them and us" attitude. On the employers' side and among industrialists there are many who do not want to know this. I have seen industrial democracy working in Germany. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to take into consideration the record of the previous Government. Let us aim for co-determination, but let us introduce it at a lower level and carry both sides of industry with us.

Mr. Dell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. On the other hand it would appear that the Opposition do not agree. We wish to seek a basis of consensus in this legislation.
As regards a lower level of participation, again the majority report emphasises the importance of that, and in a statement issued today Lord Bullock personally emphasised its importance. Nothing in the proposals of the majority report is inconsistent with that. The argument in the majority report is that, if these arrangements are made in respect of a board of directors, that will encourage the development of participation at lower levels within the company.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many who are on record as being in favour of employee participation believe that this can be satisfactorily achieved only by a two-tier system in companies, by a proper demarcation of function between the supervisory board and the board of management, and by the use of fully democratic procedures for the election of employee representatives?
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give close and sympathetic consideration to the recommendations of the minority report in this regard—particularly those on pages 178 to 181—during the transitional period which is likely to be prescribed by the Fifth Company Directive of the Community, keeping in mind the goal of the two-tier system which that revised directive is almost certain to prescribe?

Mr. Dell: We shall certainly consider the two-tier system as one option in these consultations. We do not rule that out. On the other hand, if there is to be a two-tier system there will need to be significant responsibilities attached to the upper tier. The majority report, after consideration of a two-tier system, and for reasons that were explained in some detail, came out against it. The minority report was in favour of it. We shall consider that argument. There may be merit in it. This, however, is a subject for consultation.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the attitude adopted by the Conservative Party and by employers will be clearly noted among industrial workers? Does he agree that, as usual, the Conservative Party and, I am afraid, employers, have proved once again that their attitude towards industrial relations is in the last century and not this century?
Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the point that not only should there be a ballot on the first basis for having such a system in any company but that the workers should elect their representatives to the management board? Further, will he ensure that in discussions with the trade unions we get the rôle of the trade unions correct? Trade unions are not in our society to run industry; they are here to protect the workers' interests. That must be taken into consideration. Finally, can we begin by introducing participation in the industries we already control—namely, the publicly-owned industries?

Mr. Dell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He has no doubt noted what I said about industrial democracy in the nationalised industries. There is nothing inconsistent, and I do not think my hon. Friend thinks that there is anything inconsistent, in developments

of this kind and the protection of workers' interests—quite the contrary. I note what my hon. Friend says about elections to the boards of directors. That is a matter for consultation.

Mr. Neubert: Does the Secretary of State agree that for a Labour Government representing less than 30 per cent. of the electorate to facilitate worker control by trade unions representing only 40 per cent. of the working people is scarcely democracy by any definition? How can he hope to achieve a genuinely democratic, lasting settlement involving such a fundamental change in time to introduce a Bill this Session?

Mr. Dell: Our intention is to have consultations with the CBI and the TUC to find out whether there is any basis of consensus on which we can build. I think there is, and I hope that we shall find it. I hope that the time constraints to which the hon. Gentleman appropriately refers will not prevent our introducing a Bill this Session. Certainly we are committed to introducing legislative proposals to the House this Session, and that is our objective.

Dr. McDonald: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the legislation which the Government introduce will embody the principles of the majority report of the Bullock Committee—namely, to give employees through their worker directors the opportunity to influence the strategic decisions of the company and in such a way that capital and labour are on equal terms? Does he further agree that the opposition so far shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by the CBI to the majority report of the Bullock Committee show, on the one hand, that they are afraid of true democracy in the workplace and, secondly, that in trying to circumvent the trade union machinery in electing worker directors they showed that they do not understand industrial relations any better than they did when—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to argue the case today but to ask their questions.

Mr. Dell: Certainly, the object of this process is to give workers an opportunity to influence strategic decisions of their companies. As for the proposal of the majority report that the constitution of


the board of directors shall involve parity between worker and shareholder representatives, I remind the House that, in a sense, a proposal of a form of parity is equally to be found in the minority report. However, it is certainly open to the CBI or representatives of industry or to any other party to argue that parity is inappropriate in this case. That will be part of the consultations which we shall now undertake with a view to finding the consensus that we are seeking.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Secretary of State in his consultations remember that the CBI does not fully represent the whole of industry? Will he also consult the institutions which own a large number of shares in quoted companies largely representing pension funds and other small shareholders indirectly? Will he show that he takes seriously the whole concept of industrial democracy by trying to link the recommendations of the Bullock Report, by an extension of industrial democracy, by encouraging through the tax system the ownership of shares by employees?

Mr. Dell: Of course, a number of companies encourage share ownership through various arrangements that they have made. Certainly, if institutions wish to make representations about the report they will be heard. There is no problem about that.

Mr. John Ellis: Would my right hon. Friend say a few more words about his thinking on the nationalised industries, and in particular steel? Would he also profit from past experience in the arrangements that are made? There is not the expectancy that there was in the past for all the worker representatives to have to break all their links with the trade union movement and, indeed, that there should be the right of recall for those representatives for the trade unions concerned.

Mr. Dell: The majority report suggests a system of recall for the whole system if it is once implemented and has been operating for five years. As for the nationalised industries, as I said in my statement the right to worker directors is equally to be extended to nationalised industries on a basis which we shall establish through parallel consultations.

Mr. David Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the terms of reference given to the Bullock Committee were so constrained and so loaded that the majority recommendation is hardly surprising? Is he, therefore, aware that the report carries little authority as a definitive statement on industrial participation?

Mr. Dell: The terms of reference raised the question of how industrial democracy, by which was meant the representation of workers on boards of directors, should be introduced in this country. It also raised the question of what the economic effects of so doing were likely to be. The question "How?" is the question that has been asked and answered in a whole series of European countries, and this was the appropriate question to which we had to ask the Bullock Committee to address itself because that is a relevant question at this time.

Mr. Atkinson: In preparing the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the overwhelming opinion of the trade union movement is in favour of a single-tier board? Secondly, during that preparation will my right hon. Friend undertake also to consider any changes in company law that will facilitate the full concept of planning agreements being brought into being, because many of those who submitted evidence to the Bullock Committee did so on the basis that worker directors elected to a board should be so elected to enable effective planning agreements to be brought about?

Mr. Dell: Planning agreements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I do not know to what precise changes in company law my hon. Friend refers, but the intention has always been, and still is, that these should remain voluntary.
I note what my hon. Friend said about the overwhelming opinion of the trade union movement on the question of a single-tier board. I am not sure that the trade union movement is unanimous on that. Certainly trade union representatives on the Bullock Committee, as a result of the arguments advanced, seem to have changed their view on this subject. A single-tier board is plainly an option. It is well argued in the Committee's report that that should be the


course to take. Nevertheless, at this stage I do not believe that we should rule out the possibility of a two-tier board.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the Secretary of State aware that his opening remarks were reminiscent of the remarks that preceded the Industrial Relations Act—that is to say, that he implied that there were a large number of non-negotiable parts in his consultation? Is he further aware that his subsequent remarks softened that impression? Which was the correct impression? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that the Bill in respect of the publicly-owned industries and that for the private sector are brought forward together?

Mr. Dell: When the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to read my statement, he will see that I did not put down a long list of non-negotiable parts. What I did was to repeat the Government's commitment in respect of the process towards industrial democracy in the form of representation of workers on boards of directors and the essential rôle of trade unions in that process. That was what I repeated. My answer emphasised the importance of consultation on the subject, and in answer to supplementary questions I indicated that that consultation would cover many of the matters that have been raised during questions today.
The Government hope to be able to introduce the legislative proposals in respect of the nationalised industries at the same time as those dealing with the private sector.

Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement reaffirming the Government's commitment to industrial democracy will be welcomed not only by the majority in the House but by the bulk of employees in the country, as revealed by a Market Research Society poll published in the newspapers this morning? Does he agree that it is a pity that the three company chairmen who signed the minority report did not follow their own plea that
all should be prepared to abandon prejudice, pre-conception and dogma, and to weigh sectional interests against national imperatives"?
In the spirit of that plea, will the Government try to direct the attention of all concerned to the content and not merely

the form of the work of industrial representatives?

Mr. Dell: Yes, certainly. I note, too, what my hon. Friend said about the Market Research Society report. I suggest that one of the most important developments that we should look for now is a public debate on the issues raised by the publication of that report. That, too, will help to get agreement on the subject and to show that in this area the issue is reconcilable, just as in our history we have found many other difficult issues to be reconcilable.

Mr. Higgins: Why were the Government afraid to give the Committee terms of reference that did not prejudge the main issue? Does not the Secretary of State understand that a system in which a single vote restricts all subsequent votes to trade unionists cannot conceivably be regarded as democratic? Further, can he tell us whether he accepts the view that all directors must have the same legal rights and liabilities? Will he say whether that is the Government's view and whether that point will be open for discussion?

Mr. Dell: In my statement I laid stress on the point that the Bullock majority report emphasised the need for all directors to have the same responsibilities. I believe that that is right. That was the majority report's conclusion. We were not afraid to have the wider question discussed. The point was that we thought that the relevant question was how—not whether—this process should be implemented. It was a matter on which we thought it was right to make a commitment, and it was supported in the election. I have already indicated that there will be consultations regarding the procedures for selecting worker directors.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the interest in this matter I have allowed the debate to run for 40 minutes. I propose to allow another three questions from both sides. We will then have to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Clemitson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if industrial democracy is to develop there must be a favourable climate for it to do so, and does he agree that that climate will not


exist as long as trade unions are forced into the defensive position of having to fight rearguard actions to safeguard their members' jobs rather than being able to develop a positive rôle which industrial democracy implies?

Mr. Dell: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I entirely accept what he said about the need for a favourable climate. That is why I should like to see an element of public debate on this issue, because I think that public debate would gather a great deal of support for industrial democracy of this kind.

Mr. Shersby: What changes in company law does the Secretary of State contemplate to encourage the other forms of employee participation to which he referred in his statement?

Mr. Dell: That is a matter that we can consider. However, the majority report says that forms of consultative mechanism lower than the board should not be established by enactment. It also says that such systems can be developed by companies by agreement. This is what the report says. Again, this is something that will have to be considered. It may be that other provisions are necessary. We will listen to arguments on that point. However, the majority report, after considering this question, came to the conclusion that the best way of encouraging participation at lower levels within the company was to develop representation of workers on boards of directors. I think it would be admitted throughout much of industry that, in the development of participatory processes below board level, this country has been unfortunately slow and that we need some encouragement of that process.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend give us on this side of the House an assurance that in framing the legislation we start from the premise that we are committed to a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and that the minority report's proposals go nowhere near to meeting that? Indeed, they leave out any form of decision-making policy and so on. They also make clear that the organisation and structure of companies will remain exactly the same. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the essential reason why trade union representatives only should be on

these boards is that they are the only ones with the back-up service from an effective organisation to do the job that is required to be done?

Mr. Dell: The aspect of this that I should like to emphasise is responsibility. In my view, one of the objects of industrial democracy is to ensure that responsibility for the successful operation of companies is spread throughout the country and that it is not limited to people elected by the shareholders but it is spread to people who represent all the employees of a country. That is the object, and I hope that that is the object that we can achieve.
As for the reasons for the trade union channel, as it is described, this is a matter which is discussed in the majority report. I have explained the view of the Government on this subject. We shall consult about this issue.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of what the Secretary of State has said about industrial democracy, can he say whether the Government will be giving a favourable passage to the Employee Investment Bill, which has its Second Reading on 4th February?

Mr. Dell: When I have found out what that Bill says, I shall contact the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Greville Janner: As worker participation legislation is now absolutely inevitable, will my right hon. Friend advise industry not to wait for the legislation but to get cracking and provide industrial democracy in its own units now in its own good time?

Mr. Dell: There is nothing to prevent companies from developing the consultative and participatory procedures which they say in their public statements are necessary but which, unfortunately, have been too little developed within British companies so far. Nothing exists to prevent that from happening. We intend to give further encouragement to that process.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the favourable climate that he and all hon. Members seek is not likely to be enhanced by the kind of statement he has made today? His remarks in answer to questions have been


a good deal more helpful than the original statement.
How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement that we shall consult on the general basis of the recommendations contained in the majority report with what he has subsequently said about considering the minority report and the two-tier board? Will he confirm that consultations will allow full and open discussion of other methods of non-statutory imposition of consultative machinery? Will he also confirm that the Government are not committed to statutory imposition of worker directors, as he seemed to imply in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel)
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman understand that this proposal, if carried through in the form proposed in the Bullock Report or anything like the majority report, is likely to set back industrial confidence and industrial investment for many years?

Mr. Corbett: The right hon. Gentleman is the expert on that.

Mr. Prior: If hon. Gentlemen opposite who for months and years said that the law had only a minor part to play in industrial relations order can now introduce legislation which is bound to be opposed by a great part of British industry, they are asking for all the trouble they are likely to get.

Mr. Dell: I have several times emphasised that our objective is to introduce legislation that will command consent. The right hon. Gentleman says that the process of consultation or the discovery of consensus will not be encouraged by the statement I made today and that he finds the statement irreconcilable with my answers. If he studies the statement, he will find nothing irreconcilable. The Government have a commitment, which I repeated, and we are prepared to consult beyond that commitment in order to find the basis of consent that we all wish.
The right hon. Gentleman appears to be a laggard, even behind some of the statements coming from industry at the moment. For example, he does not want any legislation at all. As I understand it, the CBI is prepared to have legislation

provided that it deals with consultative machinery below board level. The right hon. Gentleman has not even caught up with that attitude.

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL (PAPERS)

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter about which I have given notice, which at first sight may seem a bit trivial but which has a certain importance.
All Scottish Members of Parliament had a letter from the Council of Agricultural Colleges which states:
'Adopting advice from the Scottish Information Office a supply of these Notes was sent to the House of Commons on 18th January, with a request to the Serjeant at Arms that they might be distributed to all Scottish Members of Parliament whose names were written at the top of each Note.
I now understand that there is no provision for this course of action and the Notes have been returned. I much regret that because of this you have been unable to see their contents before date of publication but hope that you will now be able to give it your consideration.
I think I understand clearly the rules which govern the Serjeant at Arms in distributing literature, and this could be open to great abuse. But may I make a request, without making any kind of complaint? Given the circumstances of the Scotland and Wales Bill, given the circumstances of many amendments that are tabled at relatively short notice, given the circumstances of the flexibility of the Government and that there are many interest groups which have a considerable and urgent interest in what we are doing, I wonder whether—I do not ask for an answer today—in the case of those who say "This is a circular from a bona fide interest group", be it the doctors, a trade union or an employers' organisation concerned with the Scotland and Wales Bill, asking the Serjeant at Arms to distribute such literature, because there is some urgency about this, you could consider waiving the rule.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has raised a matter to which consideration has been given on other occasions. If the door were opened for unfranked or unstamped correspondence to come from special interests in connection with devolution, I


believe that it would be impossible to close the door to special interests involving every other Bill that is being considered by the House.
The hon. Gentleman knows that, for very good reasons, the House authorities do not as a general practice accept unstamped letters in bulk to be delivered to hon. Members. I believe that we get a very good service. I would have liked to be able to help the hon. Gentleman but I fear that I cannot see any possibility of being able to do so.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (AVAILABILITY)

Mr. Crouch: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker, I return to the subject of industrial democracy on which the Secretary of State for Trade has been questioned for 40 minutes. I am glad that the Leader of the House is here to hear my point of order.
My point of order concerns the important matter of a statement relating to the Bullock Report, which has been promised to us for so long and which seems to have been read intimately in Fleet Street and by radio and Press commentators before it came near this House. This puts Back Benchers at a grave disadvantage when we face the Secretary of State, who has had the document in his hands for six or eight weeks. He has been able to study and discuss the report with the members of the Bullock Committee. It is a matter of importance that the representatives of the people in this House are not in a position to put questions to the right hon. Gentleman based on a study in depth of this document because of its late publication to Members of the House. We know that some hon. Members—not only on the Treasury Bench—have had sight of the document beforehand. I heard it reported this morning, for example, that the Leader of the Liberal Party had a copy before this morning began. Hon. Members will be unable to serve their constituents and special interests if we are put at such a disadvantage.

Mr. Tim Renton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has just said. In recent weeks it seemed that the world

was divided into those who had read the Bullock Report and those who had not. Most of the world had read it. The few who had not were Members of Parliament. Bearing in mind that it was a report commissioned by the Government, it seems to have been the best-leaked report in history.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon you allowed the discussion to go on rather longer than usual, but many hon. Members who wished to catch your eye were still unsuccessful. I believe that this may be the most important matter that we shall discuss this year, and it would be very helpful if we could know whether we shall have an opportunity to discuss the report further before legislation is brought forward.

Mr. David Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This subject raises a point of general interest. Many of us feel embarrassed when documents like this are released on a time embargo to the Press—which no doubt honours the embargo—yet Members are not invited to join in that confidence. If the Press can be relied upon to honour an embargo, surely hon. Members could be similarly relied upon. This has never been tested. Might I suggest that an attempt should be made to put hon. Members on the same trust as the Press?

Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I reinforce what has been said about the embargo position? It is embarrassing to Back Benchers to be telephoned by members of the Press and to be asked to make comments on a report which Back Benchers have not seen but which the Press has had for perhaps two or three days. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to do something to cure this longstanding grievance in the House.

Mr. Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Very shortly—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emery—very shortly.

Mr. Emery: . There are times when the Government have to make statements and when, clearly, the House must accept that it is impossible for it to be given advance information, but when there is a published document of this nature why cannot it be made available to the House at least two or two and a half hours


before the statement is made? It is not a matter of publication. It is a matter of policy, and it is that policy which I hope can be considered.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw attention to the fact that coupled with the report a detailed document was circulated to the Press? This document by the Department virtually summarised the findings of the Bullock Report for the benefit of the Press so that the Press might easily write about it and understand it.
I have had the benefit within the last two hours of seeing a copy of that Press handout. It would have been extremely useful to hon. Members to have had that document, because there is no summary of the recommendations in the report itself. Would it be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to urge Government Ministers to ensure that any Press handouts on such reports are made available to Members of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The best way in which I can serve the House is by saying that I am well aware, as is every hon. Member of the House, of the long-standing problem. The Leader of the House has heard what has been said—I rather fancy that he is trying to catch my eye—and he may, further to that point of order, be able to say something.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the case that this question has been raised on a number of previous occasions in the House. It involves the relationship between the House of Commons and members of the Press. We had discussions on this subject a month or so ago. In the main, we have sustained the practice followed by previous Administrations and by previous Governments, and there are good grounds for the way in which this

is arranged. However, if representations are made that we should look at the practice afresh I shall do so, but I assure hon. Members that the matter has been considered by Ministers in different Governments over a long period and that it is not easy to devise a different system.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED

JOB RELEASE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Mr. Secretary Booth, supported by Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Robert Sheldon and Mr. John Golding, presented a Bill to provide finance for job release schemes; and for a connected purpose: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Mr. Kenneth Lomas presented a Bill to abolish the right of hereditary peers to vote; to provide for the eventual extinction of the hereditary peerage; to make other provision with respect to the functions of hereditary peers; to make provision with respect to the composition of the House of Lords and to the powers of the House of Lords with respect to legislation and its other functions; and for purposes connected therewith: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

SCOTLAND (TEACHER TRAINING)

Ordered,
That the matter of Teacher Training in Scotland from 1977 onwards (Consultative Document of 17th January 1977), being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Foot.]

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES (REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES)

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to redress grievances among persons dismissed from employment on being unfairly refused membership of employee organisations.
I seek the leave of the House to introduce in advance of the Bullock Report one very small step towards industrial democracy, namely, the Dismissal of Employees (Redress of Grievances) Bill.
It is usually best for any private Member, seeking leave to bring in a Bill, to avoid any attempt at highly contentious or major legislation and, rather, to stick to the redress of an urgent and specific grievance. My Bill is designed to protect a fairly small number of individual workers against unjust treatment, whether by employers or by trade unions, in specific industrial situations. It stems directly from cases like that of my constituent, Mr. Anthony Buxton, a man with three children, who was dismissed from his job at a firm in Newmarket. By common consent, Mr. Buxton is a competent worker, whose services the firm wanted to retain. Unfortunately, he was not able to comply with the company's agreement with the local branch of the Transport and General Workers' Union to maintain a closed shop, and so after due notice he was sacked.
If Mr. Buxton had not been willing to join the union, neither he nor I would have felt able to complain. I freely admit that I am not an enthusiast for the closed shop, but the closed shop is legal; it is not uncommon and, wherever one has been agreed between a willing management and a clear majority of the work force, I see little alternative, in present circumstances, to accepting it. But Mr. Buxton was and is willing to join the union. I should make it clear that he was not enthusiastic, but at the end of the day he overcame his objections and applied in good faith to join.
Unfortunately for Mr. Buxton, his application was rejected. He then sought a personal hearing, but that, too, was refused by the shop stewards. He asked to be given reasons why he had been excluded from the union and therefore,

as it turned out, from his job. I am sorry to say that the local shop stewards would not give him any reason, save only a passing remark that his previous refusal to join had brought the union into dispute.
Mr. Buxton then appealed to the regional office of the TGWU but it simply confirmed the decision of his local shop stewards. Thus, without a hearing, with no reasons given, Mr. Buxton, a worker with a wife and three children and no other means of support, has been sacked from his job under the terms of the closed shop contract that his employer had agreed with the union.
Many men and women in this country either have suffered or may suffer the same fate as that of Mr. Buxton. I do not say that there are thousands, there may not even be hundreds, but I have ascertained that there are certainly many scores.
This situation raises two points of principle. First, should any British worker be sacked by an employer who is willing to retain his services, even though he has sought in good faith to join the union with whom that employer has made a closed shop agreement? Second, is it right for this to happen without the dismissed employee being given any reason for his application to join the union being rejected and for his job therefore being taken away from him?
What worries me is the prospect that a few men behind closed doors can decide whether a person may or may not join a union and, therefore, where a close shop is operated, whether that person may or may not have a job. Suppose, for example, that the true reason why Mr. Buxton or anyone else was refused admission to the union was that its local officers disliked his morals, his politics, or even the colour of his hair. So long as they do not have to give any reason for rejecting him, that is surely unjust.
For example, my daughter, who is about to qualify as a shorthand-typist, might apply for a job with that firm. She is perfectly willing to join the union. I can assure the House that her record is impeccable. Yet if no reasons are required to be given, the local branch of the union could refuse to admit her, thereby preventing her from getting a job or working in any other place where


that union has a closed shop, solely because, in secret, it was decided that its members did not want to work with the daughter of a Member of this House.
My Bill is in no way directed against trade unions. It does not attack the principle of a closed shop. Its sole purpose is to prevent abuses and, in particular, to ensure that men or women who are sacked because a staff association or a union refuses to admit them shall first have a right to be given reasons for their exclusion and that in certain circumstances they may have a right of appeal against dismissal if the reasons for their exclusion are shown to be frivolous or malicious.
The Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act—rightly, in my view—provide safeguards against discrimination in employment, and recent consumer protection legislation provides a right for anyone refused credit to require reasons for that refusal to be given to him so that he may seek redress in the event that he has been damaged. No less protection should be available to men and women whose employers dismiss them not because their work is unsatisfactory but solely because they are denied admission, with no reasons given, to a union that they are willing to join.
If the House is minded to allow me to introduce the Bill I shall be happy to accept advice and amendments from the Secretary of State and anyone else in the Government, and from the TUC. I ask only that its main principle be left intact. That principle is that no man or woman should lose his or her job in Britain simply because he or she is blackballed by a secret cabal.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Tierney: I rise to oppose the Bill. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that the Bill is a limited measure, not designed to attack the trade unions or the principle of the closed shop but simply to provide redress for those who lose their jobs, where a closed shop is operated, because of exclusion or expulsion from a trade union. That may or may not be so—

Mr. Tim Renton: It is so.

Mr. Tierney: —but I remind the hon. Gentleman that in seeking leave to introduce

a Bill on this subject he is reopening an issue that has been debated recently in the House at great length, particularly in our debates on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act.
The arrangements made for dealing with cases like this—arrangements were made—were finally accepted by Parliament at that time. Those who risk dismissal from their employment because of expulsion or exclusion from a union are now well able to appeal to an independent review body, which was set up under that Act to hear such cases as the one raised by the hon. Member. It is independent of the TUC and of individual unions, and was appointed in consultation with the Chairman of ACAS and the Secretary of State for Employment.
The Bill would inevitably introduce statutory rules and sanctions, which formed a great part of the debate on the measure to which I have just referred and such provisions would single out the unions for special liability in law—a matter that the House recently decided against.
I should have thought that if the Industrial Relations Act taught us anything it taught us that there is no room for the law in industrial relations, and that industry should be left to solve its own problems. In Committee on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, I listened for many hours to Conservative Members talking about freedom for people with strong convictions against joining trade unions. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has now produced a five-point plan to assist those people with strong convictions to avoid union membership.
Now, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has taken up the case of one of his constituents, who is said to have similar strong convictions about not joining a trade union. The individual concerned was a member of a union in 1957–58. He left his job in 1958 and when he did so he left the union. Between 1958 and 1972, he worked for two other employers, claiming that they were non-union shops, so he did not have to join a union at all. He took up another job in 1972 with the company mentioned by the hon. Member, and in 1976, when a closed shop was introduced, he applied for membership of the


Transport and General Workers' Union and his application was refused.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why"]—That is the problem. Let us discuss it. We are talking about people with strong convictions. In this respect, the in-and-out record of this constituent over union membership shows no conviction either way—either to be a union member or not to be a union member.
It is well known in industry that there are those who spend a great deal of their working lives avoiding trade union membership. It is a matter of convenience and not conviction. These people use frivolous and sometimes malicious reasons for not joining. Some people who use these excuses to avoid joining a trade union talk about unrelated things, such as the colour of hair and the politics and morals of the shop stewards. In fact, they enjoy the excitement of a free ride, because their arms are short and their pockets are deep. They play a game of "catch me if you can". No one can claim that the trade unions are always wrong, and sometimes they get tired of appealing to individuals, so they say that they no longer want their membership, voluntary or otherwise.

Mr. Ian Cow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I not right in thinking that when an hon. Member seeks to oppose a Ten-Minute Bill he is restricted to opposing the proposals put forward? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) is making a very powerful speech, but it is quite unrelated to the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It is entirely a matter for the Chair. Interventions are not in order during Ten-Minutes Rule speeches. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) is responsible for his own objections to this Bill and for the arguments that he puts forward.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the weaknesses of the proposition is that we do not know exactly what is being put forward.

Mr. Tierney: Some people who successfully avoid paying their dues to trade unions feel that they must tell the shop

floor about it. They boast about their achievements and they ridicule the rest and point out that they are paying for something which they are getting for nothing. I maintain that they are very disruptive on the shop floor. They disunite the shop floor and the harmony is gone. Production is affected. Then the management does the rest. Those men—not the union—go, and normally the management has no hesitation about this.
There are thousands of workers in industry who have strong convictions about trade unions but work in so-called nonunion shops. I wish that Conservatives would sometimes show the same concern for individual trade unionists who work in non-union shops. They must be very careful not to act like trade unionists for fear of reprisals from their employers but at the same time they maintain their trade union membership and hold deep convictions. They live in hope of the day when they can exercise this conviction in a free and positive manner in trade union shops. Why do the Opposition not show the same concern for such workers in the retail, catering and hairdressing trades, for example? Some nonunion establishments do not even receive wage council rates, known in the trade as "legal stingy minimum wage".

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the normal rules that a speech allegedly opposing the application should not deal at all with the subject raised in the Bill? Surely that must be an abuse of the rules.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Yardley must relate his argument to the Bill.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We listened quietly to the application for the introduction of the Bill, right to the end. Constant interruptions have gone on during the opposing speech of my hon. Friend, to such an extent that it is difficult to follow him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point is taken, but the hon. Member for Yardley must relate his arguments to the Ten-Minute Bill. I trust that he will draw his remarks to a conclusion shortly.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the convention in the Fen-Minutes Rule procedure is that the hon. Member introducing the Bill puts his argument in terms that he thinks fit in relation to his own Bill, and that he is not interrupted by points of order? Is it not also the case that the same treatment should apply to the hon. Member opposing the Bill? I suggest that the same treatment should be accorded to both sides of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I entirely agree. Both sides should be heard.

Mr. Hayhoe: Is the Lord President saying that anyone can make any speech he likes, referring to any matter he likes, as long as he prefaces his remarks by saying that he opposes the Ten-Minute Bill? It must be a rule of the House that the opposition to a Ten-Minute Bill must be relevant to the application that has been made. The speech that we have been listening to is an abuse of that procedure.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has always been the arrangement in the House that when a speech is made on a Ten-Minute Bill, interruptions that would take place normally in other circumstances are avoided, otherwise it might cause hon. Members submitting Ten-Minute Bills to be constantly interrupted from the moment they start. The same principle should apply to the hon. Member opposing the Bill. All we ask is that Conservatives should apply the same rules to hon. Members on this side of the House. If these interruptions in Ten-Minute Bill speeches are to continue, does it mean that the conventions of the House have been altered?

Sir David Renton: The Leader of the House has missed the point. It is not so much a convention as a precaution that the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, when calling upon the hon. Member who is opposing the application for a Ten-Minute Bill, asks him whether he seeks to oppose the motion. That means that the Speaker expects the hon. Member to oppose the motion and not to oppose something which has not been

put. If the hon. Member who purports to oppose the motion in fact discusses something else, surely it is a breach of order, and if there is a breach of order. whether it be by the Opposition or anyone else, the attention of the Chair should be drawn to it. and the Chair should be invited to rule upon it, as I would respectfully say you have done. Mr. Murton.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The relevance of the remarks is of course a matter for the Chair, and the House must understand that. Interventions are dealt with in "Erskine May". They are out of order. It is hoped that the good manners of the House will prevail and interruptions will not take place. That sums up the matter. I suggest to the hon. Member for Yardley that he draws his remarks to a conclusion as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Tierney: I am sorry that I cannot say something that pleases the Opposition. I shall continue to oppose the motion. We on the Government side of the House are as concerned as the Opposition about freedom and the problems of persons who find themselves, in this kind of situation, being excluded from trade union membership, especially for reasons that are frivolous or malicious.
We also believe that this problem cannot be dealt with through statutory requirements. The Independent Review Committee should be given a fair chance. The committee was set up only a few months ago, and it is too early to make a judgment on its success or failure.
I understand that the case to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, involving his constituent, has been referred to the Independent Review Committee. I am pleased to hear that. I have spoken to hon. Members who are sponsored in this House by the Transport and General Workers' Union and I am told that between 1972 and 1976 the hon. Gentleman's constituent was approached on numerous occasions to join the union. He steadfastly refused—whether through morals, politics, or the colour of his hair—and applied to join in 1976, when it was convenient for him to do so.
I understand that the Transport and General Workers' Union is glad of the opportunity to put its case to the Independent Review Committee. The union


is ready to make a full and detailed statement. Three other unions at the place of work fully support the action taken by the TGWU.
Most people in the House feel confident that the present arrangements will be successful in dealing with problems of this kind. The House only recently came to a decision on these matters, when the Independent Review Committee was brought into being. If and when there is evidence that the system is not working, the Government have indicated that they are prepared to reconsider the

matter. Should that time come, I am sure that both sides of the House will remind the Government of their promise, but there is no case for reopening the issue now. Therefore, I ask the House to oppose the introduction of this Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 164. Noes 153.

DivisionNo.48.]
AYES
[4.52p.m.


Adley, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Banks, Robert
Hannam, John
Prior, Rt Hon James


Berth, A. J.
Havers, Sir Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Benyon, W.
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hodgson, Robin
Rathbone, Tim


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Blaker, Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Body, Richard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhodes James, R.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brittan, Leon
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brotherton, Michael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Host, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sainsbury, Tim


Bulmer, Esmond
Kershaw, Anthony
St. John Stevas, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carson, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Churchill, W. S.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shepherd, Colin


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shersby, Michael


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Corrie, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Loveridge, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Crouch, David
Luce, Richard
Spence, John


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Drayson, Burnaby
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Durant, Tony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Elliott, Sir William
Mather, Carol
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Wakeham, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Freud, Clement
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Neubert, Michael
Weatherill, Bernard.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Newton, Tony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Nott, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Younger, Hon George


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)



Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Page, Richard (Workington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pardoe, John
Mr. Eldon Griffiths and


Grylls, Michael
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Ian Cow.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Archer, Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Bates, Alf
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Campbell, Ian




Canavan, Dennis
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Parry, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Roderick, Caerwyn


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rose, Paul B.


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor
Rose, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rowlands, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sandelson, Neville


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Sillars, James


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Small, William


Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Edge, Geoff
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Snape, Peter


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Eilis, Tom (Wrexham)
Litterick, Tom
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael
Loyden, Eddie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ennals, David
Mabon, Rt Hon. Dr J. Dickson
Stoddart, David


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


Evans, John (Newton)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Tierney, Sydney


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watkins, David


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White, James (Pollok)


George, Bruce
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Gilbert, Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Golding, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gould, Bryan
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gourlay, Harry
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


Graham, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Woof, Robert


Grant, John (Islington C)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Grocott, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, George
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Harper, Joseph
Parker, John
Mr. Sydney Bidwell.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Eldon Griffiths, Mr. Arthur Jones, Mr. F. A. Burden, Mr. John Cope, Mr. David Price, and Mr. Ian Gow.

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES (REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths accordingly presented a Bill to redress grievances among persons dismissed from employment on being unfairly refused membership of employee organisations: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 25th January].

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clause 2

THE ASSEMBLIES

5.5 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 453, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) There shall be established in Scotland a Parliament called "the Parliament of Scotland" consisting of Her Majesty and an assembly elected by the people of Scotland called "the Scots Parliament", and there shall be established in Wales a Parliament called "the Parliament of Wales" consisting of Her Majesty and an assembly elected by the people of Wales called "y Senedd" or "the Senate of the Parliament of Wales"'.

The Chairman: With this amendment we may also take the following amendments:

No. 312, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Scottish Assembly and a Welsh Assembly' and insert
'National Assembly for Scotland and a National Assembly for Wales'.
No. 454, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Parliament'.
No. 57, in page 1, leave out line 16 and insert 'Parliament'.
No. 391, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Council'.
No. 64, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Parliament'.
No. 69, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'parliamentary elections' and insert
'elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom'.
No. 81, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Parliament'.
No. 85, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Parliament'.

Mr. Steel: Shortly after 4.30 a.m. this morning, when the Government were exhausted. I was about to embark on this series of amendments. They are intended

to make marginal improvements to the Bill. It is not my intention to burden the debate with yet another re-run of the arguments about federalism or anything else. These amendments simply deal with technicalities in the Bill.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who called for the closure?

Mr. Steel: I do not think mat me hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was with us at 4.30 a.m.

The Chairman: At the beginning of today's consideration of the Bill in Committee I appeal for courtesy on both sides.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) tell us who moved to report Progress on the Bill last night?

Mr. Steel: It was the Leader of the House, although it was moved by the Liberals on an earlier occasion.
As I was saying, we were about to begin on these amendments at 4.30 in the morning, so I am now happy that instead we are to begin on them afresh this afternoon.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): The comment made by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was not relevant. There was no need for him to make that remark. Some hon. Members would like to remind the public, who do not attend the House but who read Hansard, that some hours before 4.30 a.m. today the Liberal Chief Whip moved to report Progress on the Bill. That indicates that the Liberals were tiring.

Mr. Steel: The reason for that was that we saw no hope of reaching a vote at that time, but once a vote had been taken we would have been happy to continue the debate. All I wanted to point out is that we are now able to begin a fresh amendment on a new day instead of debating far into the morning.
These are technical amendments designed to improve the Bill. My colleagues would prefer to see the word "Parliament" inserted where at present the word "Assembly" appears. There are three grounds for this. First I want


to repeat a point that I made when the White Paper with the Government's proposals was published.
The Government have the psychology of the devolution programme wrong. This could be seen when they introduced governor-general type powers for the Secretary of State which have been considerably if not entirely modified since in the light of objections. It was wrong to call the Premier in the Assemblies by the same name as the chief officer of a local authority. It was entirely wrong that the legislatures should be described as Assemblies—a term used by my party for its annual conference and by the Church of Scotland for its annual gathering. I would have thought that a body that will have executive and legislative powers— and I hope more powers than are contained in the Bill—should be worth the title of Parliament.
We are dealing with an exercise intended to respond to the wishes of the people of Scotland. I have no doubt that the prevailing mood is for the return of a Scottish Parliament to look after Scottish interests. We can have detailed arguments about how far we would go in giving away powers to such a Parliament.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The old Scottish Parliament was a sovereign body. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the people of Scotland wish to return to such a system?

Mr. Steel: That is just what I did not say. I said that there was a wish to establish a Scottish Parliament, but that we would all have different views about what its powers should be. The SNP would argue that it should have the same powers as the Scottish Parliament which existed before the Act of Union in 1707. That is not my view.

Mr. Timothy Raison: This whole debate is about the word "Parliament" and it is important that the right hon. Gentleman tells us what he means by that word. We cannot make up our minds on the amendment unless he tells us what "Parliament" means and what powers it ought to have.

Mr. Steel: I do not propose to fall into the trap of reopening a general discussion. Other amendments, some in the

names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, deal with, for example, powers of taxation, cutting down Scottish representation in this House and extending powers over industry and the economy. But we shall come to those later and if we have a general debate on every amendment, we shall never make progress.
This is an important but technical series of amendments to change the drafting of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will allow me to answer his questions in discussions on later amendments. I shall confine my remarks to Scotland as some of my hon. Friends may wish to speak on the Welsh section of the amendment.
My second argument follows. The title of "Parliament" has existed in Scotland before. It is historically correct and it is worth looking back at the arguments in Scotland in the run-in to the negotiations on the 1707 treaties. There is no doubt that a great section of Scottish opinion, including Scottish parliamentary opinion, believed that the commissioners were appointed to come to London and treat for the benefit of the people of Scotland for union with the Parliament of England. They were expected to treat for that union within some sort of federal or quasi-federal framework. However, the commissioners took back proposals for an incorporating union and they were agreed by the Scottish and English Parliaments.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the arrangements in 1707 were peculiarly patrician and bore little relevance to our present democratic society?

Mr. Steel: I agree that there were more dukes per head in that Parliament than is normal even in this Parliament.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that many members of the nobility in that Parliament got their dukedoms and promotions after their votes for the Union had been tendered?

Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman is partly, though not wholly, correct.
Professor Hannam, formerly of the chair of politics at Edinburgh University, has argued convincingly in a book that


Texas got more from the act of union in the United States, not in an economic, but in a political sense, than Scotland got from the Act of Union of 1707. The Scottish Parliament agreed to form an incorporating union which left Scotland with no voice, no political focus and no operational unit through which public opinion could express itself on any grievance. It is our view, though not I suspect the Government's, that we are trying to amend that situation in this legislation.
There is a good case for restoring the proper title without going back to sovereign status or dissolution of the Act of Union. We can recreate a sense of inspiration in the people of Scotland by recreating the Parliament which used to exist, albeit in a very different form from that which we would expect of a democratic assembly today.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: The right hon. Gentleman is arguing his case persuasively, but Clause 1 says that this legislation will not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament. Does he not accept that it is desirable to use a title other than "Parliament" for the devolved bodies so that we may establish that they are not sovereign institutions and that they are something fundamentally different from the Parliament of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We have passed Clause 1, but my right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment to the clause which would have removed this difficulty. We now have to deal with the Bill as it is and our amendment suggests that the body in Edinburgh should be called the "Scots Parliament" so that there will be no muddle with the Westminster Parliament.
My third argument brings us to a point of difference between my party and the Government—how much power we propose to give to the devolved body. I can understand the Government resisting a change in the title of the Assembly if they see it as being a subordinate instrument of the Government with no power, for example, to raise taxation and with its powers of legislation limited to those

which could be overridden at any time by the Westminster Parliament.
We should not like to see the Bill develop in that way. We are at an early stage in our discussions, but I must confess that our third reason for wanting a change may not appeal to all hon. Members. I believe that the powers given to the elected body in Scotland should be greater than those outlined in the Bill. We shall be discussing this point later, but it is consistent with our opinions that the body should be given the proper title of Parliament rather than what appears to be the second-grade title of Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not agree with the claim of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that this is simply a technical series of amendments. It is far more than playing with words and far more than mere semantics; nomenclature is a matter of considerable importance. If I speak for a little longer than I have hitherto—and my seven-minute speech yesterday was the shortest in the debate—it is a reflection of the importance which I attach to the amendment.
Incidentally, in response to the Liberal leader, it is possible to give many different versions of what happened at the time of the Act of Union. I read a great deal about it during the Christmas Recess and it was not only a question of the Scots trying to muscle in on English trade.
There were a number of Scots politicians who saw being part of a larger British whole as a partial answer to the continual friction and bickering within Scotland at that time. That has some relevance for us today, as a salutory warning.
Those who speak, like the right hon. Gentleman, of creating a sense of inspiration must mean that they want the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a separate State.
I simply do not believe that one can claim to derive a sense of inspiration from institutions such as the proposed Assembly. Though I would disagree with them, some people might claim a sense of inspiration in setting up a new nation State. I do not believe that changing the form of institutions in the way that the Government wish can seriously be claimed to be creating a sense of inspiration.
If we are to reminisce about the Scottish Parliament that was, let us also remember that for very many of us the golden age of Scotland came after, not before, 1707. Post 1907 was the age of enlightenment, the age of Hume, the age when Edinburgh created the first planned new town in the world, when Edinburgh had the first fire service in the world and created a whole list of other achievements.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Unless I misheard the hon. Gentleman, he said that Edinburgh was the first planned new town in the world. If I did not mishear him, surely he is overlooking several thousand years of planned new towns which preceded Edinburgh.

Mr. Dalyell: I realised as soon as the right hon. Gentleman stirred in his seat that I was unwise to mention new towns. I should have said that I was referring to the first new town, post-Renaissance, in the Western world, and that I concede straight away. I hope not to get into some Thucydidean wrangle with the right hon. Gentleman.
As I see it, the issue depends on the possibilities that exist for this institution, call it Parliament or Assembly, and I believe that there are four such possibilities. The first possibility is that the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies would have no representation at Westminster. That is obviously absurd unless all political power is to be transferred to the Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff. That is the SNP and Plaid Cymru solution and it involves the decision to dismantle the United Kingdom and would mean the end of Britain as we have known it. Naturally, just so long as the Parliament of the United Kingdom exercises any powers in Scotland and Wales, so the inhabitants there must clearly be represented in Westminster. This is therefore not an option.
The second possible answer to the problem of representation is that the electorate of Scotland and Wales would continue to be represented at Westminster as they are now in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and of the unitary State. Is such a situation tolerable, however, and if it is, for how long will it remain so?
Scotland is significantly over-represented at present and so is Wales to a

lesser extent. If there are to be Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff, such over-representation is no longer defensible. It might not even have been defended for many months longer in the absence of the proposals for the Assemblies.
Here I must put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Some time ago there was an argument whether the Government were thinking of getting out of this real difficulty by substantially increasing the number of English MPs and basing the numbers on a per capita basis. On such a basis the membership of the House of Commons would increase to 780. If we were to tell our electors that, as a result of our great devolution proposals, we were increasing the number of Members to 780, I think that our electors might have some comment to make. On the other hand, I gather that this proposal is not dead and therefore I ask my hon. Friend whether he has any comment on it.
In the current situation how in good conscience can Westminster say to a Stormont-less electorate in Ulster "You have 12 MPs, one for every 85,000 Northern Ireland electors, but the Scots over the water with their own Assembly, with control over education, housing, health and a host of other subjects, have 71 MPs representing 52,000 electors each"? This is not a credible situation which can survive. In that situation Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales can legislate on subjects for which they are simply not responsible to their constituents and are not answerable to the voters affected in England. There will, I believe, be a reaction to that among those who regard it as intolerable.
We have to be clear. Are the Government proposing a Parliament or an Assembly? Our Scottish participation could very well be decisive on legislation merely affecting the residents of England. Further, the Scots and the Welsh could very well decide the political complexion of the majority at Westminster and, as a result, the political attitude of the Government.
To add insult to injury, this could be the position in the aftermath of an election which had largely or partly been decided on the very issues of political debate on which the High School and the Coal Exchange were autonomous. In


any stable political situation both no representation of Welsh and Scots in the Assembly, and full representation are ruled out, and such a position one way or the other simply does not accord with the continued existence of the United Kingdom in its literal sense, to which my right hon. Friends, no less than I, are committed. There is, however, no cosy in-between course either.
Let us consider the third and fourth possible answers to the problem of representation of Scots and Welsh in the United Kingdom Parliament and its effect on the situation in the Assemblies, or Parliaments, whichever they are to be, in Edinburgh and Cardiff. The third answer, and one that tends to attract pro-devolution Members who consider themselves realistic and candid, is that reduced representation must come, and I think that it is on the outcome of this nomenclature discussion that certain further amendments have to be considered. It could be reflected that to reduce the number of Scottish MPs to 57 or thereabouts would defeat much of the political purpose of the whole exercise on which in the Labour Party we are embarked.
In no way, however, would reduced representation solve the problem of irresponsible participation in other people's business. The principle remains the same. It makes it no better whether 50, 57, 35 or 10 hon. Members can vote on matters for which literally they have no responsibility whatever.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) will remember that I interrupted him on this point the other evening saying that I thought his argument in this case was a bad argument. On further reflection I think that it is even worse because we are voting on issues for which literally we have no responsibility.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I think, if we are talking about the same discussion, that we were simply at cross purposes. I refer to the problems both of the number and the rôle. I think that I ended up by agreeing with the hon. Member and that we were saying that the position left by the Bill was insupportable and provided an unanswered dilemma on both grounds. I do not think that we need disagree.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I should re-read, yet again, the Hansard report. However

I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman did not concede that point. The truth is that under this Bill I can vote on schools, roads, housing and many other matters in Whitby, Yorkshire, and not only can the hon. Gentleman not vote on the very same matters in Whitburn, West Lothian, but neither can I. That is the absurdity of the situation.

Mr. Brittan: Let me clarify this point beyond peradventure. There is no need to disagree when we agree. If the hon. Member will look at the late amendment, Amendment No. 562, tabled yesterday in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and others of my hon. Friends, he will see that the same point that he is making is taken.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to continue my discussion with the hon. Member. I must obviously look at that amendment, and I accept what he says.

Mr. Raison: At the risk of seeming pedantic, may I point out that I shall still be able to vote about any internal matter in the hon. Gentleman's constituency? The Government are relying on a convention which says that I shall not be able to vote on matters in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. But under the law of the land, if the Bill goes through, I shall be just as much able to vote about anything that happens in his constituency as I can at present. The scheme is absurd and anomalous. It depends on people obeying convention. There is no reason why active Scottish Members should necessarily observe that convention. They may decide to vote on matters concerning their constituencies, and I might decide to vote on matters concerning the hon. Gentleman's constituency. This points to the enormous anomalies in this unworkable scheme.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is right, that has certain consequences for Members of the Assembly. If he is right, this will lead to enormous resentment inside the Assembly. But I am not sure whether he is right.
It will be in your recollection, Mr. Murton, that I have already formally asked you once for your advice, and I must now ask you again. Because of the


critical nature of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, there ought to be a statement from the Lord Advocate at an early stage setting out the legal consequences of what is proposed. The Lord Advocate wrote me a very courteous letter, which I quoted to the Committee, and I am sure that he is working hard on this problem, but people have been working on the devolution proposals for two and a half to three years. This is a fundamental, fulcrum point, and we are entitled to ask for a statement from one of the Law Officers about whether the hon. Member for Aylesbury is right. If he is, it makes a great difference to future discussions. If he is wrong in law, a statement to that effect will save considerable time.

Mr. David Steel: Although the hon. Gentleman has never agreed with our proposals, I hope that he will grant me and my colleagues that part of the absurdities and anomalies which he is outlining stem from the lack of a comprehensive federal system but surely they are nothing like as ferocious as the absurdities with which he is dealing at present, where on a crucial matter like, for example, the Local Government (Scotland) Bill we had serious debates throughout the night among Scottish Members whose constituencies were affected, only to have the final vote decided on the basis of the English majority who carried no responsibility for local government in Scotland. Surely that is one of the objectives behind the changes that we suggest. They are taking away one of the biggest absurdities of all.

The Chairman: Before the debate continues, I must point out to the Committee that this amendment relates to the nomenclature of the two Assemblies. I am becoming slightly alarmed that the debate is going rather wide of that mark. The difficulty is that, if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) goes wide of that mark, other right hon. and hon. Members may be drawn into similar discussion. Nomenclature is the word upon which we must pin our debate.

Mr. Raison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. The Committee is in some difficulty. Quite clearly, when we are discussing nomenclature we must

have an idea of the meaning of the word. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said that he was not necessarily talking about the Assembly as the Government see it. He referred to an Assembly which might be improved in certain respects which he mentioned in his speech and in his intervention. It would be unduly restrictive if we were to be confined very tightly to the nomenclature without being able to discuss what it means in reality.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. The Leader of the Liberal Party said inter alia that there were two reasons which prompted him to move his amendment. The first was that of psychology and the second was that he wanted the Assembly proposed by the Government to have additional powers which, of course, would be more appropriate to an Assembly which was called a Parliament. Since the Chair permitted the Leader of the Liberal Party to discuss the whole psychology of government and the powers of the Assembly, is it not in order for other hon. Members to follow the right hon. Gentleman, and is it not in order, therefore, for the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to follow the line of argument that he is pursuing?

The Chairman: I do not desire to be unduly restrictive, but I heard the word "federalism" mentioned at one point. That is clearly not the intention of the amendment.

Mr. Raison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I took some notes of what the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said in introducing his amendment. On a number of occasions he referred to a federal or quasi-federal interpretation. Furthermore, when he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), he again said that he had in mind something which was more federal than what the Government are proposing.

The Chairman: It was the latter remark that attracted my attention. I think that the best thing is for me to say that I shall attempt not to be unduly restrictive. I hope that hon. Members understand my difficulty on this matter. I shall be as lenient as I can within the rules of order, and I shall allow the hon. Member for West Lothian to continue his argument.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I hope that, despite your remark about not being unduly restrictive, you will not allow the discussion to become so wide that the debate becomes a repeat of previous debates on questions of substance. All of us are anxious to see the fullest possible debate on this issue, but we fear that if hon. Members stray too widely they will be providing the Government with an opportunity to bring in a guillotine motion, which would be disgraceful.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's second point has nothing to do with the Chair, but his first remark was merely repeating what I had said. I am anxious that the debate does not spread too wide from the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: The last thing that I want is to provide reasons for my right hon. Friends to proceed with a guillotine motion. That is why I am sticking rather carefully to my notes, because it is a tightly drawn argument and I do not want to waste words.
The interventions illustrate part of the difficulty of this subject. For two or three years much of the argument on the subject has been confined to catch phrases, sloganising and arguments that were not properly thought out. We are now paying the penalty.
I understand the position of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles on federalism, but I must not be drawn down that alley. The federalism which we are discussing here is very different from the federal structure of Germany, and implies in Britain 85 per cent. of the population in one unit, 10 per cent. in another and 5 per cent. in another.
I will listen to his argument on this point as soon as I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) say that we must have a subordinate Parliament or Assembly in Liverpool and when I hear other hon. Members asking for legislative Assemblies in Bristol, Birmingham, Norwich and elsewhere. Then it becomes a possibility. But, until this happens, I do not think it is sensible to talk in terms of what the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles wants.
The fourth possibility is that the representatives of Scotland and Wales in this House, having Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff, should speak and vote only on those subjects for which powers have not been transferred to the Assemblies. I gather that this possibility is currently under discussion inside the Government. This would put Scottish and Welsh Members in the position of the "in and out" Members, as they used to be called, in the debates upon Mr. Gladstone's 1893 Home Rule Bill for Ireland.
This is not defensible. Apart from creating what will inevitably soon be perceived as first and second-class Members of the same House of Commons, no real demarcation line can be drawn in a unitary State between one set of topics and another set of topics. In any modern legislature social subjects and economic policy become intertwined. There is not a Budget debate nowadays without also a discussion not only of wages policy but of the level of housing subsidy, school meals and other thorny issues. There is not a debate on domestic affairs without reference to foreign policies in general and foreign bankers in particular.
If there is to be an entrenched separation of functions between a unitary State and subordinate Parliaments in Edinburgh and Cardiff, at the very least it means changing the unitary State into some kind of federal State such as the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles suggests.
Can one seriously believe that, even in an ethos of maximum good will—which emphatically does not and is not likely to exist—one can think of Members of the same Parliament with different functions and limitations?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman said that it was not possible to have what he called these "in and out" Members, because it was not possible to differentiate between different kinds of legislation. Is it not a fact that Mr. Speaker now certifies that certain Bills are Scottish Bills? Why can he not in the same way certify that certain Bills are English Bills? Then the hon. Gentleman and I, if we are still in this new House, would not be able to vote on those matters. But we shall be able to vote in the same numbers as at present on what I might call, to use an old-fashioned phrase, imperial matters, such as defence.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman deserves a direct answer. The Chair would continuously be in an impossible situation. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the following extract from the speech by the right hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) who, on Second Reading, said:
There is not time to consider the possibilities and difficulties of having selective voting rights at Westminster. What I have said clearly indicates that this dissension will inevitably follow. The Bill makes no mention of that—one of the most important considerations which will arise quickly. Suffice it to say that no Parliament, in Edinburgh, Cardiff or at Westminster, could long survive having first and second-class members.
At that stage I intervened and said:
The right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) is one of the hon. Members who has spoken in the debate who has experience of the Chair. Is it not hard for the Chair to make a judgment on selective voting rights about what impinges on the United Kingdom as a whole or what is genuinely a Scottish or Welsh matter?
The right hon. Lady, who, as hon. Members know, is one of the few who have experience of the Chair, replied:
I do not want to take any responsibility for considerations which the Chair might make, but I can say that throughout my time in the Chair I have strenuously fought to ensure that the Chair is protected from making any such decisions which sooner or later impinge
—this is the point—
upon party political considerations in which the Chair must never take part."—[Official Report, 15th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1623–4.]
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) raised a matter of crucial importance. The idea that the Chair, day after day, would be making decisions whether the Scots could vote on procedural decisions makes matters complicated to the point of being almost impossible. We all know that procedural decisions in the House of Commons have considerable relevance to the political realities. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small) wish to intervene? Can we imagine the Chair deciding whether Scots could vote or not vote on guillotine motions?

Mr. William Small: I was beginning to think that my hon. Friend was wandering from the nomenclature.

The Chairman: Order. I must rise again and say that the hon. Member for West Lothian is abusing the generosity of the Chair. We must stick to the question of nomenclature. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the mark.

Mr. Dalyell: The last thing that I want to do is in any way to abuse the generosity of the Chair on this matter. Therefore, I shall bring my remarks to a close.
If we are to have this compartmentalised discussion on this whole issue, if it is to be as itsy-bitsy as some decisions might imply, we shall have an unreal discussion.
The truth is that in this whole business so many subjects are intertwined. That is part of the difficulty of what we are discussing. If it is said that it is just a matter of names, it is just a matter of nomenclature and it does not matter very much, why on earth are we having this discussion? Presumably the reason why you, Mr. Murton, have called all these amendments and given them an important place in the timetable is that they are important. The truth is that we cannot have a subordinate Assembly or Parliament in part—though only part—of a unitary State.
The last thing that I want to do is to abuse the time of the Committee or to be awkward to the Chair. Therefore, I shall bring my remarks to a halt.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Powell: I thought that it was a breathtaking piece of nomenclature on the part of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) to describe his amendment as technical.

Mr. Dalyell: Exactly.

Mr. Powell: You, Mr. Murton, are entirely right, as always, in saying that prima facie the subject of the amendment is one of nomenclature. But the right hon. Gentleman in moving the amendment left us in no doubt that the word and the thing are very closely connected. Behind most words there lies a thing, but what a thing it is that lies behind the word "Parliament".
The right hon. Gentleman had not launched very far into commending the amendment to the Committee before he said that he wanted to see more powers


given to this thing which he believes ought to be called a Parliament. Then he went on to refer—this is germane to the use of the word—to the return of a Scottish Parliament.
"A Scottish Parliament" can mean anything that we like. But, if we are talking about the "return" of a Scottish Parliament, we know in what context we are using the expression "a Scottish Parliament"—namely, that which the Scottish Parliament was before what the right hon. Gentleman correctly described as "an incorporating union".
There is no mistaking the significance or the intention of this amendment or the fact that, whether we like it or not and however narrowly we endeavour to compartmentalise this part of our debates, we are being invited to go to the heart of the proposals in the Bill.
"Parliament"—again, a word can mean whatever we say that it shall mean—a.has a clear and distinct constitutional significance, and a clear and distinct constitutional usage in our legislation. The whole of the liberties and sovereign independence of the United Kingdom are founded upon what Parliament is and can do. That was expressed dramatically by Henry VIII when he declared:
We are nowhere so high in our Estate Royal as in this our High Court of Parliament.
He was using the word "Parliament" there—by no means for the first time in several centuries of English history—to indicate that setting in which power and competence are at their widest possible extent.
If we write the word "Parliament" into the Bill in substitution for "Assembly", we are putting up a programme. There is no mistaking what those who wish to write in "Parliament" mean. They mean that these bodies are intended to be assemblies worthy to be called, and to have the proper and natural meaning of, Parliaments.
There are two—I think only two—contexts in which "Parliament" is used in our constitutional diction and legislation The first is as the supreme assembly of a sovereign state. It is in that sense that accurately—at any rate until 1972—it has been applied to this institution of which the House of Commons is a part.
But elsewhere in the Commonwealth there are Parliaments which are not parallel

to the supreme legislature of the United Kingdom. For example, in the Commonwealth of Australia there is a Commonwealth Parliament and there is also a Parliament in each of the states.
That observation does not destroy the validity of what I have claimed for the significance of the word "Parliament" because, since the Commonwealth of Australia is a federation, both the Commonwealth itself and the individual states have vested, guaranteed rights by the fundamental law establishing the Commonwealth, which defines the spheres within which the respective assemblies are sovereign. So whether we look to a federal State or to a unitary State, we find that in our usage the word "Parliament" is the description of an assembly which exercises, with the Crown, sovereign power.
There is, as usual, the Irish exception; but, as usual, the Irish exception turns out to be an exception that proves the rule, and also to be of instruction. I observe that the wording of the amendment moved on behalf of the Liberal Party follows fairly closely the nomenclature of the 1914 and 1920 Acts setting up home rule in Ireland—in the earlier case in the whole island of Ireland; in the second case, in the two several parts into which the island of Ireland was, for that purpose, divided.
For example, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 begins with the words,
On and after the appointed day there shall be established for Southern Ireland a Parliament to be called the Parliament of Southern Ireland consisting of His Majesty, the Senate of Southern Ireland, and the House of Commons of Southern Ireland".
That is as close a parallel as one could desire for the proposition in each of the two parts of the amendment before the Committee that
There shall he established … a Parliament … consisting of Her Majesty and an assembly … called the Scots Parliament'.
Given that the Assembly in the framework of the Bill is unicameral, I do not think that the Liberal Party could have reproduced the formulae of the 1914 and 1920 Acts m0uch more closely than it has done in the terminology of the amendment.
What happened as a result of setting up a Parliament in Southern Ireland and a Parliament in Northern Ireland—a


Parliament in each case consisting of His Majesty and a bicameral assembly? There happened in the case of Southern Ireland—as there would have happened, had the 1914 Act been persisted in, in the case of Ireland as a whole—that separation of Southern Ireland from the United Kingdom which had been seen and predicted as the necessary and inevitable consequence of establishing a body fit to be called a Parliament—a consequence which had been predicted and argued at great length on very much the same grounds as have been summarily displayed to the Committee by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—because of the very nature of what was done in the forefront of those statutes. What we are being invited, so far as nomenclature goes, to do in this Bill is to set up a new sovereign body. Now, there cannot be two competitive sovereign bodies.

Mr. John Smith: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt him.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps I could help the Minister of State. I hope that he is not about to take me on to dealing with the case of Northern Ireland, because I am about to come to that.

Mr. John Smith: It is all right. I wonder whether perhaps the right hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue. I thought that he said that what we were being invited to do in the Bill was to set up another sovereign body. That is what we may be being invited to do in the amendment, but certainly not in the Bill.

Mr. Powell: I apologise if by a slip of the tongue I substituted the word "Bill" for the word "amendment". It is what we are being invited to do by the amendment. We are being invited by the amendment to declare that assemblies to be set up under the Bill, and in particular the Scots Assembly, are to be Parliaments analogous to the home rule Parliament in Ireland, or Southern Ireland, as the case might be.
Of course, there is always the exception which proves the rule—that of Northern Ireland. Although Northern Ireland, against the will of the Unionists of the day, was provided with a Parliament comprising His Majesty and two Houses,

nevertheless separation, though it was intended by the framework of the 1920 Act, did not follow. No one can read the 1920 Act without seeing that it was designed to lead by an intermediate stage to the end which would have been attained in one step by the 1914 Act. The whole structure of that Act—the Council of Ireland and the provision for an eventual Parliament of the whole of Ireland—was a clear indication that it was anticipated that the head and the body would before long come together and coalesce, as had been envisaged in 1914. That this did not happen was simply because, though they were equipped with all the trimmings of dominion status, though they were launched with a Parliament like the Parliaments of the dominions, the determination of the majority in Northern Ireland not to be separated from the rest of the Union ensured that these institutions were so used as not to allow, so far as might be, the slightest divergence or ground of separation to arise between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
However, I am afraid that the Committee would make a great mistake if we thought that that would justify us in envisaging these Assemblies as Parliaments and then imagining that the course of events, at any rate so far as the unity of the realm is concerned, would follow that which has been experienced with Northern Ireland, because the Bill is brought forward by the Government in respect of Scotland and Wales on the very express ground which is repudiated by the majority of the people of Northern Ireland—namely, that Scotland and Wales are nations.
I apologise—but it is necessary to be done—for troubling the Committee once again with the words of the Prime Minister in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. The Prime Minister said:
If this Bill becomes law, as I believe it must, there will be a new settlement among the nations that constitute the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 13th December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 992.]
and he went on to refer to Wales and Scotland again as nations.
There is no doubt whatsoever what is meant by providing that which one describes as a nation with a Parliament comprising the Sovereign and an elected


assembly. The very presence in that context of the Sovereign as part—as indeed she necessarily is—of Parliament is the clearest indication that a separation, a breaking of the Union, a "return" as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said, "to a Scots Parliament", not merely is, but is bound logically to be, envisaged upon the very argumentation of the Government themselves.
As the Bill is drafted, it is carefully so drawn that the Crown is not part of the Assembly in Scotland or Wales. The Assent of the Crown to the Acts of the Scottish Assembly is given on the recommendation of the Secretary of State by Her Majesty in Council. This is an arrangement deliberately distinct from that of legislation by a Parliament embracing the Crown along with the one or two houses of an assembly.
6.0 p.m.
In the Bill as it stands, certainly the Government have endeavoured to guard themselves against the Crown becoming an integral part of the new Assemblies of Scotland and Wales. They have done this because they know perfectly well that if that were so—if they once admitted what we are told is a matter of nomenclature that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party is proposing—there would have been created independent sovereign States. That can be the only result.
The connection between the Crown of those new States and the Crown of this realm of England would be a personal connection, just as the connection between the Crown of the United Kingdom and the Crown of the Commonwealth of Australia, which are juridically different, is only a personal union arising because the two happen to be the same person of Her present Gracious Majesty. As states they are totally independent, distinct and sovereign, marked by the existence of the two Parliaments—the Crown in Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Crown in Parliament in the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Steel: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of Australia but what is the more precise analogy—the relationship between the Crown and the Commonwealth of Australia or the Crown in relation to State Parliament?

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman leads us into familiar pastures, the pastures on the edge of which the hon. Member for West Lothian was treading when the vigilance of the Chair held him back, but the only pastures in which we can stray while creating legislative assemblies in parts of the United Kingdom and still maintaining that the United Kingdom continues to subsist. They are the pastures marked "federation". As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the position is that the Parliaments of the Australian States and the Parliament of the Australian Commonwealth are in their respective spheres sovereign—at least, that is how it was envisaged. That is so because Australia is a federal State and the respective spheres of the component parts and of the whole are marked out in a way which they are not, and arguably cannot be, in this United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: To use the right hon. Gentleman's analogy of pastures, is it not part of the problem that those who have been putting forward these proposals have given the impression that the fences, dykes or whatever that separate one pasture from another are only very small fences or dykes and of little consequence, and it is at the end of the day that we discover that the proposals that have been put forward as trivial in their nature and nothing to bother about turn out to be central issues of discussion and mark very real boundaries?

Mr. Powell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we find at this moment that a debate on a matter of nomenclature opens up and reveals the very depths of our existence as a nation.
I must warn the Minister of State and the Government that they cannot shrug off the implications that have been revealed by the Liberal amendment. They cannot do so for two separate and yet connected reasons. They cannot do so, first, because of the very reason that they proclaim for the Bill—namely, the recognition of Scotland and Wales as nations. They cannot do so, secondly, because the machinery that they are attempting to establish within a unitary State, as the hon. Member for West Lothian has demonstrated and as many of us have demonstrated in the past, is unworkable and incompatible with the


continued existence of that unitary State of the United Kingdom.
It is no accident, nor is it a perversity of hon. Members seeking to prolong debate—which I do not believe has been happening in these debates—that we constantly find ourselves driven back to fundamentals. In everything that we attempt to enact in the Bill, we are digging up the fundamentals of the United Kingdom. I think that unwittingly the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party has done the Committee a service by proving that by means of the amendment.

Sir Raymond Gower: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, I see the amendment as inconsistent with the Bill as it has been drawn and inconsistent with the objectives of the Bill as they have been described by Government spokesmen in the House of Commons.
In no way does the Bill change the name of this Parliament at Westminster. If we refer to the wording of Amendment No. 453, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have adopted the term "Parliament", which he seemed to describe as superior to "Assembly". Indeed, he seemed to deprecate the use of "Assembly". He appeared to suggest that "Assembly" was merely a term used in connection with the Synod of the Established Church of Scotland, namely, its General Assembly, or in the context of his party's general assembly. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it has another connotation. It has a respectable use in terms of the United Nations. "Assembly" is not necessarily an inferior word. It is a word that is compatible with "Parliament".
My reasons for hesitating to support the adoption of the term "Parliament" have been stated clearly by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).

Mr. David Steel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his analogy of the United Nations assembly too far. In comparison with the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, its powers are even less. It is not an executive and it is not a legislative body, whereas in the Bill we are providing for both attributes.

Sir R. Gower: The reasons for my hesitating to adopt the word "Parliament" have been stated clearly by the right hon. Member for Down, South. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party may say, I am sure that he is aware that in the context of the United Kingdom and in our constitutional history the term "Parliament" has acquired over the years a meaning that we all comprehend. It conveys the idea of a sovereign body. It implies the idea of a superior body that is uncontrolled by any other body. It is the main legislature of these islands and has been such for a couple of centuries.
If we use such terminology in respect of the Assemblies, we shall be conveying expectations in the minds of the public at large that they will be bodies similar in character to the Westminster Parliament, the supreme sovereign body that is uncontrolled by any outside body. That would surely mean that which is objectionable to many of us, namely, the inevitable break-up of the United Kingdom. I cannot see how the continuance of the United Kingdom can be reconciled with supreme Parliaments in constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot accept the suggestion made by the Leader of the Liberal Party that the use of such terminology is a minor matter. The Leader of the Liberal Party said it was a technical alteration to the Bill, but I suggest that it goes much further.
The right hon. Gentleman adopted two divisions—the psychological division and the question of powers. With regard to the psychological division I hope I do not overstate the case, but surely this will put in people's minds the idea that even if the bodies that we are now setting up under the Bill are not sovereign bodies the very terminology means that they will become bodies with such powers. It will reduce the Bill to a sort of halfway house, which will inevitably lead us on to something different.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's views about preferring a federal system. I shall not develop that argument, because I shall be ruled out of order. However, I sought to table amendments on that basis but I was advised that they were outside the Long and Short Titles of the Bill. I would certainly prefer a


federal system to the Bill, because, under that system, we would have specified and clearly separate powers for the Parliament at Westminster and clearly defined powers for the separate bodies in Scotland and Wales and, possibly, eventually in Northern Ireland, too. That could be reconciled with the maintenance of the United Kingdom for a long period ahead.
But we have not got this system. We have got something quite different. According to the Bill, the United Kingdom is apparently not to be changed. That statement is hardly justified. We are told that the powers of the United Kingdom are not to be diminished and would remain as sovereign powers.
I object to the use by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) of the term "technical". I also reject the right hon. Gentleman's description of powers. The amendment would pave the way to the enlargement of the powers without the safeguards of a federal system.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend said that if the Liberal amendment were carried it would lead us to a sort of half-way house situation. Is that not putting it too low? If this amendment is carried there will then be three Parliaments within the United Kingdom—a Parliament here at Westminster, one in Wales and one in Scotland. According to the amendment there would be the Queen in this Parliament, the Queen in Parliament in Wales and the Queen in Parliament in Scotland.

Sir R. Gower: I accept my hon. Friend's intervention, although we would still have the Bill, which states that those bodies do not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament here to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
I regard the titular changes as irreconcilable with the wording of Clause 1. I regard the terminology contained in the amendment as wholly inconsistent and irreconcilable with that wording. I am not intransigently opposed to devolution of any kind. But I am frightened by the sort of devolution that seems to be not merely irreconcilable with the terminology in the Bill but also with the setting up of bodies like this. Such a combination cannot easily be reconciled with the maintenance of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman explained that he sought to table amendments relating to his preference for federalism as an alternative. I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman's party has taken this line before. Since the hon. Gentleman has an objection, as I do, to the setting up of Assemblies—and since his party has apparently no allegiance to federalism, as I have not—will the hon. Gentleman make his position clear? Is the better alternative not to have an Assembly or federal system at all but a Parliament sovereign in the United Kingdom?

6.15 p.m.

Sir R. Gower: That may be the case. But we have already voted on the principle on Second Reading. The Committee has already defeated attempts to exempt Scotland and Wales respectively. We are now talking in that context. It is not open to me at this stage to suggest what the hon. Gentleman proposes.
I have indeed tabled certain amendments suggesting that the powers in the Bill should not come into operation until similar Assemblies have been set up in the regions of England. But they have not been selected. I am dealing solely with the sort of system that the Bill sets up. I feel that the terminology proposed by the Liberal Party will make it even more objectionable because it will suggest changes which in future would certainly involve the destruction and breaking up of the United Kingdom.
As it stands the Bill uses the term "Assemblies". It is conceivable, I hope possible, that we shall be able to hold it at that.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Government have revealed their concern about the danger of the Welsh Assembly being called a Parliament by using the Welsh word "Cynnulliad" for "Assembly" in the White Papers. If one asked any Welsh speaker in this House—we have a number of them—how he would translate that word into English, he would say that "gathering" is the correct translation. The word "Assembly" would be just about the last to occur to a Welsh speaker as being the proper English translation for the word "Cynnulliad".
Clearly the Government have gone out of their way to devise this outlandish


word which is as outlandish in Welsh as it is in English. I notice that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) agrees with me. The hon. Gentleman is a scholar in this respect. The Government have gone out of their way to use this word in a political connection in Wales, whereas it is only used in a religious or agricultural connection. It actually means to glean or to gather. The Government have deliberately used this word and have avoided using the most obvious Welsh word—Senedd—which is the Welsh for "Senate" or Parliament.

Sir R. Gower: I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend said. I shall not argue the merits or demerits of alternative words for "Assembly", or anything else.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) stated, the amendment also uses the word "Senate". That would also be objectionable, because although it may have a special Welsh connotation the literal translation of "Senate"—one that has acquired a particular constitutional significance in the constitutional history of this country and the Commonwealth—is that it usually means a second chamber.
I would regard that as a most inappropriate term to use for a first Chamber. But that is a lesser matter. I sincerely hope that on reflection hon. Members will feel that the legislation, if enacted, is delicate enough without making it even more dangerous by the incorporation of terms that suggest supreme sovereign powers which I hope the Assemblies are not likely to have at any time. That would mean involving the separation of parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I should like to respond to the speech made by the Leader of the Liberal Party who moved the amendment. I thought it was a thin speech, and it was certainly brief. I have nothing against brevity; it is an admirable quality, I hope to be equally brief. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman was being quite deliberately brief in order to try to strengthen his claim that he was dealing with technicalities rather than anything of major substance.
I cannot help but reflect how ironic it was that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman deprecated the lack of psychological understanding on the Government's part while at the same time showing a complete lack of psychological understanding himself by assuming that the word "parliament" is no more than a mere technicality.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) demonstrated in his customary masterly way precisely how wide of the mark psychologically and in substance was the Leader of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Member for Down, South strongly objected to a Parliament being established in Scotland or Wales. I am not so strongly averse. I could devise a better system to satisfy myself, and I am not averse in principle to a federal structure. However, I am pretty sure that I shall be in company with the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby tonight when I vote with him against the amendment. I should like to give my reasons therefore—from the other side of the fence as it were—why the amendment should not be approved.
The Leader of the Liberal Party put forward three arguments. He spoke of the need to respond to the mood of the Scottish people. I am the last to argue with him about what that mood is. He clearly knows much more about Scottish people than I do. But I do appreciate the difficulty of assessing from a "technical" point of view the nebulous concept of the mood of the people.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke, secondly, about the word "Parliament" in the Scottish context having a historical validity. Thirdly, he emphasised his desire that the proposed Assembly should not have a substantially subordinate rôle. In a brief intervention I hope that I dismissed the right hon. Gentleman's second argument of historical validity. Circumstances at the beginning of the eighteenth century were vastly different from those that exist today, and I see no justification for that argument being adduced to support the amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman felt that the Government were not responding speedily enough to the mood of the Scottish people by proposing, not a "technical" Parliament, merely an Assembly. The Government's response has been remarkably quick. It can be argued that the


proposal has been rushed through too quickly. The issue in Scotland has developed within a comparatively short time; it has been brewing for much longer in Wales. In recent articles I claimed that in many respects Wales had a greater justification for a measure of devolution than had Scotland. There is no justification for the right hon. Gentleman's claim that the Government's response has been slow.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of additional powers that should be granted to the Assembly. The right lion. Member for Down, South argued that the use of the word "Parliament" and the additional powers referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party would take us away from devolution as the Government see it towards federalism. In that regard I have doubt about the Government's proposals, not so much for Wales but for Scotland, doubts that would be enhanced if the amendment were accepted.
When we are setting out to pass legislation on such a fundamentally important subject as devolution, we have to go very carefully. In the Parliament of 1970–74 the Government of the day introduced industrial relations legislation. I was against the contents of the legislation and felt that it was basically unsound to produce out of a vacuum, out of the heads of Ministers—I am not sure whether the terms are synonymous—a complex intangible corpus of law to deal at a stroke with the subject of industrial relations in its entirety. In the event, we see that no one in the Government of the day was clever enough to produce at such speed anything that could have the faintest chance of working.
In the Scottish proposals there is a blurring of the edges of a limited devolution to Scotland within the clear-cut framework of the sovereignty of the British Parliament and the nation State. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said that various things—for example an abandoning of the Secretary of States Governor-Generalship rôle—had happened that betokened a fudging of this clear-cut issue. In the Welsh proposal it is obvious that devolution is limited to a well-understood nation State structure. The Scottish proposal might be running the risk of falling half-way between the Welsh position and the whole-hogging

federalism that the Leader of the Liberal Party and I would welcome.
On the ground of the impossibility of improving by ad hoc amendments legislation framed in such a way that no one can be certain that it will work satisfactorily, I shall oppose the amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I regret that I missed part of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). When we started to discuss what an Assembly was and what a Parliament was, I left the Chamber to resort to the Oxford Dictionary. There I found that the word "assembly" is defined as follows:
Gathering together, meeting".
I was shocked to find that the next definition was:
Hostile meeting, onslaught, attack".
The next definition was:
A concourse, a throng".
Only in the fifth definition of "assembly" does the Oxford Dictionary get to what we are talking about:
Gathering of persons for the purpose of deliberation and decision".
Having in my mind a definition of "assembly", I turned to "Parliament". There I found that it was:
The name applied in the early times of the French monarchy to the assembly of the great lords of the kingdom".
The next definition is:
The great council of the nation consisting of the three estates".
The fourth definition has a direct relevance to the debate:
The title of the corresponding legislative bodies which formerly existed in Scotland and Ireland".
Here we come to a definition of Parliament related to the previous Parliaments in Scotland and Ireland. I mention this with great diffidence in view of a previous ruling, but the definition goes on to refer to the Parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and so on. That brings us right to federalism.
The fifth definition is:
A convocation of tinners in the stannaries of Devon. A consultative assembly of the Middle or Inner Temple.".
I do not think that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) intended, by "Parliament", any of those concourses or convocations.
6.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman introduced the amendment as a cosmetic amendment. He said that it was not a matter of substance, and in pursuance of that he carefully refrained from giving the Committee a definition of "Parliament" or "Assembly". But the amendment steps over the boundaries of nomenclature. It is not merely an interpretation clause. It states that a Parliament is an Assembly plus Her Majesty or that an Assembly is a Parliament without Her Majesty. That is as far as the definition and interpretation go. Then, beyond the first line of interpretation, beyond the first 12 words, we come to an attempt to enact a positive law, that the Parliaments about which we are talking shall consist
of Her Majesty and an assembly".
There is an attempt not merely to put a name to the Assemblies of Scotland and Wales but to say of what they shall consist. As the right hon. Member for Down, South rightly pointed out, that is the clue to the amendment's intention.
This innocent-looking amendment has unearthed and thrown up a fundamental anomaly of the Bill. It endeavours to create substantive law in the words
consisting of Her Majesty and an assembly".
I do not want the Bill at all, but as we have it before us I hope that it will do as little as possible by way of devolution. I do not want to create sovereign bodies in Scotland and Wales or even, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said earlier, on Merseyside. Here we have an attempt to create those sovereign bodies by—with all respect to the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles—sneaking a substantive piece of law into an interpretation clause. I would resist the amendment very firmly.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In trying to change the name of the elected bodies to be set up in Scotland and Wales, the amendment follows the arguments we have constantly heard from the Liberals in favour of the introduction of a federal system. If we are to have a federal system, it is essential to have bodies which must be referred to as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament. It is not just a question of a change of name. If the Committee changed the name at

this stage, we should be moving towards the idea that the Liberal Party is putting forward.

Mr. David Steel: indicated assent.

Mr. Evans: I am glad to have the agreement of the Leader of the Liberal Party. We should be moving to a federalist structure.
We must examine what the Kilbrandon Commission said about federalism. Chapter 13 of its report deals with the question whether we should have a federal solution to our problems. The Commission reported:
At all events we have concluded that if government in the United Kingdom is to meet the present-day needs of the people it is necessary for the undivided sovereignty of Parliament to be maintained. We believe that only within the general ambit of one supreme elected authority is it likely that there will emerge the degree of unity, co-operation and flexibility which common sense suggests is desirable.
The federalist solution put forward in the Liberal amendment was rejected by Kilbrandon and is not the basis upon which the Government have tried to formulate their devolution proposals.
The same applies to the separatist arguments of the nationalist parties. There is a semantic difference between the Welsh nationalists and the Scottish nationalists. The Scottish nationalists are firm and determined in saying that they want independence, that they want saparatism. But in Wales, where the nationalists have found the going rough in trying to persuade the people to accept their philosophy, the nationalists' evidence to the Government on the sort of questions they would like in the referendum talks of—I forget the actual phrase—

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman persists in attributing to my party a policy that it has never had. The precise wording of our policy is "full national status". We have never been a separatist party in either an economic or a constitutional sense. Our position has remained constant throughout the years. In our preliminary evidence to the Crowther-Kilbrandon Commission we stated clearly that we sought full national status for Wales within a common market in the United Kingdom. within an economic union. That position has remained constant.

Mr. Evans: It is a question of what we mean when we use certain words. The Welsh nationalists say that they want full national status like that of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Those are independent countries.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Evans: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult the statement by his party secretary at the party's Press conference dealing with the referendum questions. The party secretary said that the Welsh nationalists wanted the same sort of national status as Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth countries had. Their only concession was to say that they did not want the same status as that of the Irish Republic. I understand that for some reason they are trying to introduce the Royal Family into the questions that they want to put before the people of Wales.
The Government reject separatism and federalism. There is a demand on them to accelerate devolution and to increase the amount of devolution that we should have. I have tabled a probing amendment to insert the word "Council" in place of "Assembly" for Wales. There have been long discussions in Wales about how we can devolve certain powers from this Parliament to the regions. There can be a danger in the use of words. Those of us who are opposed to the proposals in the Bill are sometimes described as anti-devolutionists. That is a misuse of the term, because there is devolution now. Certain powers have been devolved from this Parliament to local government.
I want to refer to the evidence submitted by the Labour Party to the Kilbrandon Commission. I realise the difficulty the Government have had. They have tried to meet the wishes of the people of Wales for some sort of devolution, but a major difficulty is that after the Commission was set up to investigate what could be done the Conservative Government reorganised local government. We have recently had a new local government structure established in Wales. The Government have tried to introduce proposals to reform the structure of local government and to make additional proposals. I believe that the previous Government's reorganisation of

local government, the health service and the water industry was bad. Just because they did it badly is no reason for us to add to the difficulties.
In its evidence, the Labour Party of Wales said:
Together with our colleagues in the Parliamentary Party, we reject the wasteful duplication and inevitable confusion which would arise from an Assembly for Wales which had legislative power. I would reduce the effectiveness of Welsh MPs and the influence of Wales in the United Kingdom, and would jeopardise the unity of the country as a whole. We reject an assembly which is a pure 'talking-shop', for that would probably lead to a forum with the utmost frustration where account of problems led to no possibility of dealing with them. What we shall propose therefore is reform of machinery of government for Wales based on the radica reform of local government functions and structure, the extension of democratic control over the numerous nominated or statutory bodies operating in Wales, on the need for closer scrutiny of administration in Wales of the wide. United Kingdom policies over many fields of government, and based on the need to prepare the machinery within Wales which will make it possible for the United Kingdom Government to devolve responsibility for those decisions, and for those functions which can adequately and satisfactorily be taken and carried out at a Welsh level.
So the evidence of the Labour Party was that there should be a top tier of local government.
Later on, this point was developed further, under the heading "Need for an Elected Welsh Council":
Having looked at government, local and regional, and at the wide shadowing area between local government and central government in which the nominated and appointed committees operate, and the need to provide a channel for devolution from central government, we feel that the possibility of an elected Welsh Council merits serious consideration by the Commission.
We have in mind certain fundamental considerations".
The evidence goes on to concede the value of an all-Wales authority as the top tier of local government in Wales.
We were talking there about the need for a local government structure to meet the needs of local government in the whole of Wales, with a unitary local government authority beneath. Since the reorganisation of the previous Government, we have eight counties in Wales, instead of the previous 13, and 37 districts and various community councils. They would be left alone; the additional tier would be added to the existing structure.
The danger now is that the Assembly will be created in addition to local government instead of as a substitute for it and if it is not to be a talking shop it will seek certain powers.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman did not subscribe to the view that we should give powers to an Assembly by making it a top tier of local government, thereby centralising local government and taking powers from local government? Is that what he favoured?

Mr. Evans: I agree that that is one of the difficulties that we might have foreseen. We are talking about devolution, but the proposal which my party put forward would, it is true, have taken powers, if we had still had the 13 counties, from those 13 county towns and given them to one all-Wales Council. Now that we have eight counties, what will happen to Wales in the future? Will they be abolished? I believe that that is what the creation of an Assembly means.
That proposal for a top tier of local government was better than the proposals of the previous Government. However, in the critical economic and financial situation we face at the moment, it would have been better to leave local government alone for the time being.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I think that it would be better if the hon. Gentleman discussed the amendment.

Mr. Evans: But the point of the amendment is the attempt by the opposition minority parties to remove the word "Assembly" and to add a word like "Parliament". That would mean not the body proposed in the Bill but one with far greater powers.
In its evidence to the Commission, the Labour Party of Wales talked about a council and a top tier of local government. One of the problems with the Bill is that, although the county councils and district councils have powers to raise finance, the Assembly will have no such powers. It will depend on the block grant. But an elected council for the whole of Wales could have had a rate precept and a block grant like the rate support grant—

Mr. Hooson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Evans: Yes, it could. The counties have powers of precept at the moment and an elected council would therefore have not only a block grant from Westminster but the powers to raise its own money as well.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Hooson: I shook my head because the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a horrible concept—that the Assembly should have the present powers of the county councils to raise rate precepts throughout Wales. I do not believe that the people of Wales would accept that at all.

Mr. Evans: What I am saying is that this is the proposal which my party was putting forward. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) supports the proposals in the Bill—

Mr. Hooson: Wait and see.

Mr. Evans: The Liberals always say "Wait and see". That is a favourite expression of theirs. We shall wait and see. Certain views have been expressed now, but another approach may be adopted on Third Reading.
We are seeing the results now of the mistakes of the previous Government in reorganisation. On Monday of this week, the Water Charges Equalisation Bill proved that their original Water Act was wrong. We have also received evidence this week, from those who made it, that the McKinsey Report on the reorganisation of the NHS was wrong. As for the mistakes in local government reorganisation, the only evidence one needs is to talk to local councillors.
I hope that this Bill will not be railroaded through. The original intention was that we should have a dummy Bill so that we could knock the Government's proposals into shape. We have had our present system for hundreds of years and we do not need to solve any problems by October. If we have devolution and the aim of the Bill is to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom, we must go through every clause and every sentence to ensure that what emerges is a democratic structure of the machinery of government and that it binds together the peoples of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Among the amendments selected is No. 312, in the name of the Scottish National Party. That amendment does not see the name "Assembly" as demeaning, in the way described by the Leader of the Liberal Party. Both his amendment and ours are trigger amendments related not so much to the powers of the Scottish Assembly, or the National Assembly as we would prefer to call it, or to the Parliament of Scotland or the Scots Parliament, to use the two titles clown by the Liberals. They relate more to the national status of Scotland and Wales.
We have heard some discussion about what a sovereign Parliament is. Ever since the European Communities Act, this Parliament has not been sovereign. It has given away some of its sovereignty to another body. It is perfectly possible for a Parliament to be non-sovereign. The Parliament of Northern Ireland was a non-sovereign body. We are not talking of anything other than the nomenclature that should be adopted in this case. In the amendments that we have put forward we suggest that the terminology should give added authority and stature to the bodies that will be set up under this Bill. The Government have used certain terms in the Bill which are not acceptable to people in Scotland.

Mr. Raison: Will the hon. Member tell us what he means by "added authority"?

Mr. Wilson: The authority that comes from having the correct nomenclature—the terminology that indicates the body's standing with the Scottish public. We have the example of the chief executive. The other terms that could be used are Prime Minister or Premier. The chief executive in Scotland is a term given to the professional civil servant who commands the regional structure of local government in each region, and it would be wrong to deploy the same term for the chief minister of the Scottish Executive.
The next term mentioned is the Scottish Executive. That, too, is an indication of the Government's thinking—that what we are really dealing with is an added form of local government. It is a top tier, because it is an Executive rather than a group of Ministers.
In Scotland there is no real problem over the use of these terms. Whatever

we call the chief minister—the Chief Executive, the Prime Minister, the Premier or whatever—there is no doubt that the Press in Scotland will refer to him as the Prime Minister. But it is proper that Parliament should seek to give appropriate names to the terms set out in the Bill. I do not think that it is proper that Parliament should seek to give appropriate names to the terms set out in the Bill. I do not think that it is proper at this stage to go much farther than that. On Clause 19 there will be a much greater opportunity to discuss the powers, rights and obligations of the Assemblies and we should leave the big debate until then.

Mr. Leadbitter: I think that it is an important Committee point that we should seek a definition of what the hon. Gentleman means. He was asked what he meant by "added authority". He sought to give examples by referring to the standing or status of persons within institutions. When we talk about "added authority" of this Parliament, Assembly or Senate institution, we are talking about the authority it accrues through having certain powers. Will the hon. Member answer the hon. Member for Alyesbury (Mr. Raison) who asked what he means by "added authority" for the Assembly?

Mr. Wilson: Despite the cheers which the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) is getting from the Conservative Front Bench, I thought I answered that question quite adequately. We are talking in terms of the correct names that should be applied to the Parliament and its officers to reflect their position in Scottish life. It is as simple as that. If the hon. Member has no understanding of Scottish feelings then he is in a void of uncertainty, and it would be far better for him to go to Scotland, speak to people and find out their opinions before venting his opinions in this House.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is a party political point which has no particular meaning. There is no point in the hon. Member making that kind of jibe. The average person in Scotland, or, indeed, in Wales or England, is a non-active political being, an ordinary citizen who is very much concerned about these definitions which are being attributed to him for the purposes of debate. The ordinary


person in Scotland does not take the same point of view as the hon. Member.

Mr. Wilson: When the hon. Member for Hartlepool goes to Scotland or lives in Scotland I will listen to his views about the feelings of the ordinary man and woman there on these matters. Representing a Scottish constituency as I do, I feel free to put my views about the feelings of the Scottish people. I am getting jibes from certain Members of the Committee who would be delighted to extend the debate into infinity.
In our amendment we suggest that instead of using the terms Scottish Assembly and Welsh Assembly we should call them the National Assembly for Wales and the National Assembly for Scotland. These terms recognise the national status of both Scotland and Wales, and this was recognised by the Prime Minister during the Second Reading debate. There is no problem in principle. The Scottish and Welsh nations exist even if certain hon. Members will not admit this.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) accept that his view is neither better nor worse than mine? Some of us are united in taking a particular view about the aspirations of the Scottish people. We believe that their overwhelming aspiration is to remain as part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I go back to the beginning of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), and express disappointment that he made a very snide remark about Progress being moved in the House on the Bill this morning because the Government were exhausted. I take particular exception to that, because a couple of hours earlier his own Chief Whip moved to report Progress. When the Leader of the Liberal Party was challenged on this point by my own Chief Whip he tried to slide out of it. He presents himself as a knight in shining armour, claiming that the Liberal Party is above all that kind of petty party politics. But occasionally, when he is tired and has been kept out of his bed after midnight, the mask slips and we find out exactly what he looks like.
The Liberal Leader's speech in introducing the amendment was one of the

thinnest I have ever heard him make. At one stage he referred to federalism and at another stage he said the amendment was simply a technical change and was taking account of psychology. Then, later on, he talked about the return of a Scots Parliament. He should have explained what he meant by "psychology" and "technical change".
Many hon. Members have taken up the right hon. Member over the word "Parliament" and have suggested that the use of this word necessarily means that there will be a rapid slide into the break-up of the United Kingdom. I take the view that the use of the word "Parliament" neither brings disadvantages nor automatically produces advantages, but I do wonder what is meant by psychology in the use of the word Parliament. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) was getting on to common ground with the Leader of the Liberal Party.
7.0 p.m.
We have been told that what is at stake is the matter of authority. The spokesman for the SNP used the phrase "national Assembly" as relating to the standing or status of that body. The hon. Gentleman was also implying some measure of respect. The Leader of the Liberal Party meant the same thing when he spoke of the psychology of the situation—in other words, that if we used the term "Parliament" devolution would take on more respect as a concept.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles fell into the same trap as did members of the SNP and others who are pro-devolution. They are more concerned with the trappings of power than with the substance. They seem to think that so long as there is a body with a fancy name it will solve all their problems, but that is not the case. If we are dealing with power, we should say so. Certainly we know exactly where the SNP Members stand on that issue. They are looking for complete separation and total independence for Scotland.
The Leader of the Liberal Party and others who seek to use the word "Assembly" as being some kind of second-rate term are deliberately setting out to denigrate the Assembly before it is ever in being. There is no doubt that if one looks at the powers in the Bill one takes varying views. Some argue that the


powers go too far, others that they do not go far enough, but nobody has argued that the Bill does not contain substantial powers because there are very great powers indeed vested in that body.
I go a certain way with the Leader of the Liberal Party on one issue. There are those who believe that the Assembly and devolution are ways of holding back the advance of thet SNP. It is certainly time that SNP Members stopped all their carping criticism of the Bill and of the names used in it. If the Assembly is branded as second-class before it even starts, people will not be willing to face up to the difficult decision which the Assembly will have to take. There will be no sudden millenium in Scotland in terms of power if and when the Assembly is set up. The Assembly will have to make difficult choices and face up to responsibility. Therefore, it is wrong to denigrate the Assembly by implying that it will be second-rate. If it is given credibility, those who are in favour of it should be prepared to argue that credibility instead of advancing constant negative criticisms. I hope that they will reflect on this important matter, because they are destroying their own case for devolution as representing a meaningful transfer of power to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) referred to this as a technical amendment. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to it as a simple amendment. But as this discussion has continued, it has become clear that this amendment is not just of technical importance nor of simple substance. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has already said that every debate in Committee—and today is no exception—begins as a discussion on a narrow little amendment on an easily contained subject, but we then find ourselves faced with a discussion on the fundamental issues that lie behind this legislation.
Is this body to be an Assembly or a Parliament? How will it be integrated with the House of Commons? Will it affect the unity of the United Kingdom? Week after week, month after month, our constituents read items in their newspapers and see programmes on television suggesting that the Bill will not hold

water for the purposes for which it was intended. It is said time and again that it will lead to the disunity of the United Kingdom.
At the beginning of this discussion the Chairman told the Committee that we were dealing with a matter of nomenclature. That is of course true, but it is much more than that. As the right hon. Member for Down, South made clear—with all his scholarship, allusion and knowledge of history—the word "Parliament" has a depth of richness which we could debate for many hours. In a curious way the Leader of the Liberal Party contradicted himself. He said at one stage that this was a technical amendment, and later said that it would give inspiration to the Scottish people. Therefore, this little amendment, which began as a technical matter, has somehow suddenly become transformed into a provision that will inspire the people of Scotland. That is a load of rubbish. I do not believe that the change of one word will make any difference to the situation.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, people are dealing with the paint that lies on the surface instead of getting to the substance of the matter. We are here talking about power. It is no use saying that we must change the name of this body from "Assembly" to "Parliament" without saying why we want to do so. The only reason one wants change is that one seeks to change the power situation.
I agree that not a great deal of help will be gained from looking at all the varying Parliaments and Assemblies throughout the world for the purposes of comparison. By and large the word "Parliament" implies a higher status and a connotation of added authority.

Mr. Graham Page: Does not the amendment envisage an entirely different constitutional animal—not just an Assembly, which is constitutionally different, but a Parliament to be given further powers?

Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend is correct in that assumption. The word "Parliament" is supposed of its essence to add importance. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said that the Parliament would


be an inspiration to the people of Scotland.

Mr. David Steel: No, I did not.

Mr. Sproat: The right hon. Gentleman said that it would provide inspiration.

Mr. David Steel: That is what I would like to see.

Mr. Sproat: Presumably, that is why the right hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment.
The SNP spokesman said that the name of "Parliament" would give the Assembly added authority. But it would make a difference that would not just stop with the change of name. If the name is changed the body must change in line with it.
An hon. Member who spoke earlier—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower)—said in an intervention that if there were two bodies called "Parliaments", one here at Westminster and one in Scotland, there would be confusion. There certainly would be confusion. I dare say that that is precisely one of the objects that the SNP has in mind, because if there were confusion between the two bodies they would slowly become equal. People would be unable to distinguish between the two Parliaments. They would have equal weight and balance. At present, under the Bill, the balance is weighted about 75 per cent. in favour of the Westminster Parliament and 25 per cent. to Scotland. The confusion would even up the balance, power would depart from here and go to Edinburgh and Cardiff.
I made a note of what was said by the Leader of the Liberal Party but if I have it wrong perhaps he will correct me, and I will give way to him. He said that the Scottish Parliament, as he would like to call it, "should not be subordinate". But how can it not be subordinate without being equal or superior? A Scottish Assembly that is equal or superior to Parliament would be a different animal, and a more dangerous one than that which we are now discussing.
As the House may have gathered, I do not want any form of Scottish Assembly, save possibly Scottish MPs

sitting in Edinburgh. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), I believe that what we should be doing in Committee is, if not throwing out the principle of the Bill, at least trying to improve it. The Liberals say that the Scottish Assembly should not be subordinate. I say it should be. That is essential, if only in justice to people in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly in England, who constitute 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. of the Union and who provide cash—in greater amounts than the people of Scotland—for purposes in Scotland.

Mr. George Thompson: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is well known as the hammer of the scroungers, in dealing with individual scroungers. From his point of view, Scotland as a nation must be a collective scrounger. Should he not, therefore, in principle, tell the Scots that they should learn to stand on their own feet and deal with their own problems, and not depend on others, as the hon. Gentleman claims that they do.

Mr. Sproat: I have no shame as a Scottish Member in saying that Scotland now receives about 19 per cent. more per head of the population than people in England from the United Kingdom Treasury. Money is not the only means of contributing to the Union. The United Kingdom is not just an economic unit of the Britsh Isles, but a social, political and cultural association. Scotland's contribution is unparalled, and I will not go into all the contributions that Scotland has made because some have already been spoken of this afternoon. But I could mention David Hume, Adam Smith, Robert Burns, the new town of Edinburgh, Alexander Fleming, and the inventors of the bicycle, the breech-loading rifle and the telephone.
In Scotland, every lump of coal that is hacked out of the ground is hacked out uneconomically. If SNP policies were followed every coal mine in Scotland would have to be closed down. There is not an inch of railway line in Scotland that can be run economically. But that is not the contribution that Scotland makes to the United Kingdom. Therefore, to speak of Scotland as scrounging is absurd.
I do not accept that Scotland is a separate nation. I believe in the British nation. I accept that if any part of the


British Isles needs more money from the United Kingdom Treasury it should receive it. If there is more unemployment in Liverpool than in Glasgow the help should go to Liverpool, not to Glasgow simply because it is Scottish.
7.15 p.m.
It would be wrong to call the proposed body a Parliament, because it will not be one. It will not deal with all the matters that affect Scotland. Even under the proposals of the Leader of the Liberal Party it would not be a Parliament in the sense that this House is a Parliament. Not many things are semantically provable, but that is. Such a body would not be dealing with overall taxation, foreign affairs, defence, or even North Sea oil. Even with the additions that the Leader of the Liberal Party would like—and that I would not like—such a body would not be a parliament in the same sense as the Westminster Parliament. It would not deal with the same subjects. To have two bodies of the same name with different functions in one island would be a foolish semantic confusion.

Mr. David Steel: If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) had paid more attention to the eloquent speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—to which he earlier paid tribut—he would have heard described instances where two kinds of Parliament exist within one island, as in Australia. He would have heard that there are two Parliaments in the British Isles already—one in Northern Ireland and one here.

Mr. Sproat: I do not have to accept everything said by the right hon. Member for Down, South, as gospel, and it would be strange if the Leader of the Liberal Party said that I should. In Australia they call bodies Parliaments if they like, but in this country it would lead to confusion if we had one Parliament here and another in Edinburgh. Why cause unnecessary confusion? It is in the interests of such people as members of the SNP to cause confusion, so that power can be drawn from Westminster.

Mr. Thompson: The amendment put down by the SNP proposes to call the body not a Parliament but a National Assembly for Scotland. Does that not interfere with the argument?

Mr. Sproat: Indeed it does, because I was directing my remarks to the amendment put down by the Liberals that refers a Parliament and saying that the resulting confusion would benefit the SNP. To use that interesting word that was employed by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles "psychologically" power and influence would appear to be drawn from the House.
Another reason why I object to renaming the Assembly and making it a Parliament is that it would raise that body's status, and it would do so in a nationalist way. It would bolster the idea of Scotland as a nation but not as an integrated nation, in the sense that we use the word and in the sense that the Prime Minister used it when he talked about the nations of the United Kingdom. Of course there is a nation of Scotland in that sense, but it co-exists with the British nation. The amendment, by raising the status of the Assembly to that of a Parliament, would fan the flames of separatist nationalism.
We all know that hon. Members who sit on the SNP Bench in the House are honourable men, but there are many less attractive people who support their party in Scotland and who would not hesitate to use this nationalist flavour for far nastier ends. Enough trouble is caused in the world today by nationalism and the revivification of the flames of nationalism without the House adding to them. Indeed, we have seen it. It is no use members of the SNP shaking their heads. Bombs have already exploded in Scotland, and a member of the SNP was taken to court. We know that the danger is there, and we should do nothing to fan the flames. I object to the amendment, because it raises the ugly face of nationalism. Not all the faces of nationalism—if I may speak in a kind of Hydra metaphor—are ugly, but that one is.
One of my reasons for opposing the Bill is that I believe that it is the first step down the slippery slope, and no amount of people saying that they do not agree will convince me, the majority of the Scottish people or the SNP. That is why the SNP favours the Bill; it says that half a loaf is better than no bread. The higher the status given to the Assembly, the bigger becomes the step down the road towards separatism.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep strictly to the amendment.

Mr. Sproat: I was discussing nomenclature—whether it should be a Scottish Assembly or a Scottish Parliament. I am sorry if I did not make my argument clear. I thought that I was sticking strictly to the point in saying that changing the name from Assembly to Parliament would increase the status of the body, represent a bigger step down the road to separatism and encourage an even greater feeling of Scotland as a separate nation than does the Bill.
The Bill takes us some way down the slippery slope and the amendment takes us further by increasing the status of the body and giving it greater powers—as the Liberals would like—as well as by giving it a more prestigious name.
The Leader of the Liberal Party referred to federalism. A discussion of the merits and demerits of federalism would be inopportune at present, but the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it and the previous occupant of the Chair said that he would not be unduly restrictive if we discussed this topic. We know that the Liberal Party is in favour of federalism and that it would call a federal body in Scotland a Scottish Parliament. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to change the name of the Assembly to the Scottish Parliament, it is a fair assumption that this is part of the Liberals' plan for a federal system for the United Kingdom.
The idea of federalism for this country is rubbish. It might be all right for the United States, for geographical and historical reasons, and it might be suitable for Switzerland, where three different languages are spoken. But when 85 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom lives in England, federalism here would be absurd.
The Liberals' answer is to split up England. However, England does not want that—and just think of the cost! The cost of the proposed Assemblies terrifies most of us. Just imagine the cost of a dozen assemblies in England. The Liberals want this amendment as a peg upon which they will later seek to hang their idiotic doctrine of federalism.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South

(Mr. Sproat) except to say that I agree that this is not a semantic argument. Since words still have some meaning, even in this House, we have soon moved from a discussion of meanings to their political connotations. I shall try not to go too far into the general argument, but alternative words have already been advanced.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) suggested "Council" as a title for the new bodies. It is clear why he is anxious to use that word. The SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberals have been accused of wanting the Assemblies to be called "Parliaments" so as to be confused with this House, but the hon. Member for Aberdare clearly wants to confuse the Assembly with the nominated Welsh Council or the district and county councils.
It is a deliberate attempt to deflate the status of this body. We cannot describe bodies engaged in the national allocation of resources and the scrutiny of secondary legislation as a council. That might be an appropriate word to describe a body whose functions were wholly executive, but it cannot be used to describe the body proposed in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) suggested this morning that the membership of the Assembly should be reduced. This is another deliberate attempt to lower its status in the eyes of the Welsh electorate.
I support the amendment for a number of reasons. "Parliament" is a better functional description of the body and is the best English word to describe it. I shall say something about the Welsh translation later. The national, elected body in Wales will undertake two of the major rôles of a parliament. The Scottish Assembly will undertake three.
The Welsh Assembly will be voting and allocating resources, and scrutinising the executive decisions of government. The Scottish Assembly will also be initiating its own legislation. If I have read properly the works of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), I understand that these are the three main functions of a parliament. We can say with authority that the Scottish body may be described as a parliament in the same way as Stormont, the devolved assembly


in Northern Ireland, was described as the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Is there not an additional function of a parliament to which the hon. Gentleman has not referred, namely, the collection and responsibility for the disbursement of taxes? Does the hon. Gentleman's party believe that this power should be added to those provided for the Welsh Assembly in the Bill?

Mr. Thomas: I was careful to refer to voting and allocation of resources. That is part of the financial function of a parliament, and will be carried out by both Assemblies. I appreciate that neither will be raising revenue, but that is only part of the financial function. The other part—the allocation of resources—will be undertaken by the Assemblies.
I do not favour powers to raise taxation being given to the Welsh Assembly, as currently proposed, because this power is an integral part of economic management and without substantially greater economic powers being given to the Assembly it would not be possible for it to vary the rates of taxation or to use taxation as an instrument of economic management. There is a case for direct revenue-raising powers being given to a parliament which had complete control over the Welsh economy within the economy of the EEC, but I do not support the granting of taxation powers to an Assembly which cannot undertake broad economic management.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. Would he apply the same argument to Scotland?

Mr. Thomas: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I think that the Scottish Assembly should have revenue-raising powers. Taxation must be seen as part of the whole policy of economic management, and the one cannot function effectively without the other. The SNP advances the case for transferring oil revenues to the Assembly, and it is that party's policy that the Assembly should proceed rapidly to become a parliament in the full sense of the word, able to use the broad range of economic levers, of which the control and raising of taxation is only one.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the hon. Gentleman's party discussed with the Inland Revenue Staff Federation the sheer practical difficulty of disentangling the taxation of these islands? Does the hon. Gentleman realise the difficulties? We have tax offices all over the country—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) will not go too far down that road.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Godman Irvine, for drawing attention to my deviation. I plead in mitigation that it was inspired by interventions. I shall try not to give way so much during the rest of my speech.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Kinnock: On this point about nomenclature, the word "Parliament". and the powers that should most properly go with it under the Bill, will the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the event of the Scottish Assembly or parliament getting power over oil revenues, that would be to the benefit or detriment of the people of Wales?

Mr. Thomas: It would be out of order for me to comment on the economic implications of what the hon. Gentleman says. I have referred earlier, however, at Second Reading to confidential talks with the SNP about the cycling of oil revenues, and I am sure that there would be such discussions between an independent Scottish Government and the Government of England.

Mr. Peter Rees: Are we to understand from what the hon. Gentleman just said that there would be some such arrangement as exists between Saudi Arabia and Egypt so that an independent Scotland would be underwriting an independent Wales with its oil revenues? The hon. Gentleman tantalised us by saying that these were confidential discussions, but he owes it to the Committee to say a little more about the arrangements that are proposed.

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps I may put the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind at rest by assuring him that I shall seek to return to this issue at a more appropriate time in our Committee discussions.
I should like to get back now to the major issue about the use of the word "Parliament" for these Assemblies. A Scottish Assembly would certainly carry out three of the functions of the parliament and the Welsh Assembly would carry out two-and-a-third functions. The reason the Government have rejected the term "Scottish Parliament", which would be wholly appropriate in view of the range of legislative powers, powers of scrutiny, and powers of allocating resources, is that they cannot have two titles in the Bill for two bodies. They cannot admit publicly and clearly that the Welsh Assembly is an institution of less power status than the Scottish Assembly.
I think that the word "Parliament" ought to be included for another reason, apart from that of the description of the functions of the bodies. The word "Parliament" is more readily understandable to the public than "Assembly" as the description of a Government institution. We have had references to the General Assembly of the United Nations, but that is not quite appropriate to the internal political situation in the United Kingdom. The description of the Assembly as a Parliament would place clearly in the public mind its status within the process of government.
I know that the argument has been advanced by the Conservatives rejecting the Liberal point of view tonight and saying that by giving the Assembly the title "Parliament" we are somehow precipitating down—I do not like this term and wish we had another—what is known as the slippery slope. It is hardly justifiable to argue that the use of the term "Parliament" in this context will result somehow in a body transforming itself overnight into something far more powerful and independent.
The SNP and ourselves have clearly stated that, since a referendum is to be used to establish the Assemblies, it can be used equally well to strengthen the powers of the Assemblies. I do not think that using the word "Parliament" somehow bodes ill for the Unionists in terms of the expansion of the powers of the Assemblies. The name of an institution should be immediately recognisable to those who will be voting members to it and who will be looking to it as a center

of government. Here we are transferring powers away from the central United Kingdom Parliament and to a subordinate institution of a similar kind in Scotland and Wales. In other words, it will be a mini-Welsh parliament and a mini-Scottish parliament, and it would be clearer to the public if that is what they were called.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, since he sees the Assembly as a mini-parliament, he and his hon. Friends will seek to ensure that the Assembly will work, or will they use it as a base to bring about a maxi-parliament? In other words, will they try to get increased powers within the Assembly away from this Chamber?

Mr. Thomas: It would be out of order to be drawn on that point, but I shall endeavour to reply to it at a more appropriate time later in our debate.
Let me now get on to the linguistic argument, which I hesitate to bring into the debate. If, however, hon. Members are not interested in that argument perhaps they would like to retire from the Chamber. The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) introduced this point earlier. He described me as a Welsh scholar, although I would hesitate to accept such a description. I have no intention of using my arguments here to support an application by me for a part-time Chair in Welsh, even if there were one going.
I have been very concerned throughout the devolution debate and after reading the White Paper about the use of the word "cynulliad" for the assembly. That word has never been used generally as a description of any particular body. The only normal use of the word in Welsh is to describe the numbers of a congregation. If I and my hon. Friend were returning from a Congregational chapel we might say "Roedd yna gynulliad gweddol yno", which would mean that there was a fair congregation there. Only in that context has the word been used, and the only regular linguistic use is in the form "oynulleidfa". That is a congregation, or, literally, a place where people congregate. The verb noun cynnull is used in the form neuadd gynnull for an assembly hall, but it is the verb noun and not the noun which is used.
The more readily used translation for Assembly is "cymanfa" and I do not understand why this was rejected out of hand by the Secretary of State's translation unit. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Wales, in which I was proud to be reared, is known as Y Gymanfa Gyffredinol. We have "gymanfa ganu", as the Secretary of State will know, since he has presided over many of them. I do not know whether he has taken part in a "gymanfa bregether" though he has certainly attended many. We have, therefore, singing assemblies and preaching assemblies and at least the translation of assembly as "cymanfa" could have been carried over from its religious context into its political context, and would, in my view, be more meaningful to the majority of Welsh speakers than the ill used and rather meaningless form "cynulliad". "Senedd" is the most readily understood, and that is why I strongly support the inclusion of "Senedd" in the Liberal amendment. That is the translation of senate. We have many Seneddau, apart from this establishment here at Westminster. We have the senates of colleges. We have the Senedd which is the supreme governing body of Cymdeitha yr Iaith Gymraeg of which the Secretary of State will know, since it communicates so frequently with him. In many colloquial discussions at local government we hear of the community councils referred to as "Senedd bro".

Mr. Raison: Surely the logic of all that the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the Liberal amendment should use the word "senate" and not "parliament".

Mr. Thomas: I accept the logic of what the hon. Gentleman says. If this amendment is not carried tonight we might return on Report to the matter, to try to improve on the Liberal amendment. In our amendment, which was not selected, we described the Assemblymen—a terrible term—as senators, which is to us a far more sensible expression.

Mr. Powell: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the last words of the Liberal amendment
the Senate of the Parliament of Wales
are a misprint for
the Senate or the Parliament of Wales"?

If not, what could possibly be the meaning of
the Senate of the Parliament
since Senedd Cymru is the Parliament of Wales?

Mr. Thomas: I accept that. I do not know whether the Chair can enlighten us whether there is a misprint. It would appear to me that the right hon. Gentleman is certainly right in indicating that this body should be referred to as the Senate or Parliament of Wales. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) can enlighten us on that matter.

Mr. Geraint Howells: It is quite simple. "Y Senedd" means "the Senate".

Mr. Thomas: From that I take it that had the Amendment Paper been printed by Gwasg Gomer at Llandysul there would have been no hint of a misprint. The Secretary of State agrees?
Finally, I would like to put forward my most powerful argument for the use of the word "Senedd"—in Welsh. Although it is a rather personal one, the Secretary of State knows that I never make personal attacks on him. I regularly watch the Secretary of State's appearances on Welsh language television. He occasionally uses the word "cynulliad" but he always follows it with the word "Assembly" which, to my ears, is not an easily pronounceable Welsh word and does not appear in the Geiriadur Mawr. The Secretary of State is severely embarrassed by the word which has been created by his translation unit. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could indicate whether he accepts that the term "cynulliad" should be dropped from the Government's White Paper and from the references in the White Paper in the Welsh language. Either the word "cymanfa" or the more readily intelligible word "Senedd" should be substituted. Even if the English word "Assembly" is insisted on in English, "Senedd" as a more general term in Welsh would be more appropriate. I hope that we may have some indication from the Secretary of State about his intentions when he appears in future Welsh language television programmes.

Mr. Brittan: I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to make further points


relating to the amendment, but it might be helpful if I gave some indication of what my right hon. and hon. Friends' views are on this issue. I would not have the impertinence to express any view at all on one of the matters debated most recently—the correct translation of the Welsh phrase for "Welsh Assembly".
I see that the Secretary of State for Wales is here. It might be helpful if, at some stage, he explained why this Welsh translation for "the Welsh Assembly" has been used. I would not attempt to intervene on that subject. Apart from the use of any particular word in the Welsh language, there is a problem in the Liberal amendment about the precise meaning of
the Senate of the Parliament of Wales.
These are problems that cannot be dealt with at this stage, but it is clear that any view about the Liberal amendment assumes that there will be both a Parliament of Scotland and a Parliament of Wales or at least that institutions will be set up by this Bill which could be so described.
In considering the merits of the amendment, it seems that there are two possible purposes behind it. When I listened to the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) I could not help feeling that he had somewhat confused the two possible purposes. On the one hand, it might be that we could say to the House that the amendment should be made because the word "Parliament" more accurately described the institutions created by the Bill than the word "Assembly". The alternative approach would be to say that we were not satisfied that the institutions created by the Bill were properly described as "Assemblies" and that what had to be created could be more properly described as "Parliaments".
I felt that, in putting forward his argument in favour of the amendment, the Leader of the Liberal Party mixed up the two possible purposes. Perhaps it does not matter quite so much, because the amendment is equally objectionable whatever its purposes. If the true purpose is to describe accurately the institutions set up by the Bill, I do not think it is a better functional description to use the word used by the hon. Member for

Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and to describe the institutions as "Parliaments".
The reason why I take that view is that I accept the analysis of the nature and the concept of a Parliament, as expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He epitomised the matter by saying that "Parliament" has a clear and distinct constitutional usage and importance, and that a Parliament was the supreme assembly of a sovereign State. He explained how that concept was compatible with a federal structure and he also explained the one anomaly of the Northern Ireland Parliament. In that analysis we find the basis for the objection to calling these institutions "Parliaments". As I understand it, it is not the Government's intention to create anything that could conceivably be called the supreme assembly of a sovereign State. Nor, much as I criticise the Bill, would I make the criticism that the Government have fallen into the error, purely by inadvertence, of creating such a supreme assembly of any such sovereign State. They have not done anything of the kind. Nor have they created a federal structure. Therefore, to call these Assemblies "Parliaments", if the object is to produce a better functional description of what the Bill is creating, is simply, according to normal usage, grossly misleading.Therefore, the amendment should be rejected.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) may talk about normal usage, but is he not aware that those of us in Scotland understand perfectly well that the Daily Record, the Sunday Mail, the Scotsman, the Scottish Daily Express produced in Manchester will not be too careful about the use of words, and to them it will become a Parliament, and expectations of a Parliament will be aroused in the public's mind. Is he not aware that words are chosen, perhaps not very meaningfully at first, and are then given meanings which were not originally intended? That is part of the history of the past three years of debate.

Mr. Brittan: I do not disagree with one word that the hon. Gentleman said. But, if we create an Assembly and people call it a Parliament, at least they


can be corrected—although it may be a hopeless task to correct them, and that may be the object of the whole scheme.
This scheme, which I do not support, plainly makes matters very much worse if we give succour and support to any misdescription by ignoring such a misdescription in the Bill itself. If the object of the exercise is to describe accurately the institutions, the amendment should not be supported. But plainly the real objective of the exercise is not to give a description of the institutions created by the Bill; the object is to try to change the nature of those institutions by describing them inaccurately, hoping in that way either that they will be able to assume powers which are not granted them by the Bill or, alternatively, that they will, because of the assumption of the name "Parliament", be assisted in claiming powers by amendment of the Bill or by further Bills which it is not intended to give in this Bill.
I regard that as being a less than candid way of achieving the purposes of those who support the amendment. If we are seeking to create a federal or independent structure let us do it. But it is not worthy of this Parliament to bring about effects of that kind by a side wind.
The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles talked about getting the psychology wrong. Unless one is being deliberately wilful in this respect, I cannot think of anything more dangerous than arousing expectations which cannot be fulfilled by the institutions which have been created in the hope that those expectations will lead to the demise, destruction, removal or alteration of the institutions which have been created. Therefore, to talk about there being a good historical argument for the use of the word "Parliament" is completely misleading, as the institution which historically bore that title bears no resemblance to the institutions being created by the Bill.
Other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen made the same point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said that the amendment sought to sneak in a substantive change. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said that it amounted to a demand to the Government to accelerate the process

embodied in the Bill, but that it had not reached anything approaching the stage which could properly be described as a Parliament.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the Labour and Liberal Parties, at the beginning of this century, were in favour of a policy described as home rule all round, they referred to as Parliaments what we now call Assemblies in Scotland, Ireland and Wales?

Mr. Brittan: I am not as much of an expert as the hon. Gentleman on the nature of the proposals put forward. Different proposals were put forward at different times. Whatever may have been put forward on previous occasions, what is put forward in this legislation cannot, in ordinary usage, properly be called a Parliament. To call it that is to arouse false expectations and is extremely dangerous. For those reasons, I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Mr. John Smith: The heart of this debate is the nomenclature to be applied to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) suggested that they be called Parliaments on the basis of psychology, history and powers. There has already been comment, with which I substantially agree, about the misapplication of psychology in this respect. We want to find an accurate name for the Assemblies which neither overstates nor understates their powers.
In modern usage the term "Parliament" has come to carry the implication of sovereignty. A fundamental feature of the Bill is that sovereignty is not devolved. Powers are devolved—indeed, substantial powers are devolved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out—but sovereignty is not devolved. I understand that is the classic difference between a scheme of devolution and a scheme of federation. Federation divides sovereignty. If we were talking about a federal proposition, it would be appropriate to call the subordinate institutions Parliaments. In that sense they are not subordinate, because they share sovereignty or have a different aspect of sovereignty. The Government have not suggested that that is what they are


proposing. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to use the term "Parliament" for the type of bodies being set up by the Bill.
I suppose that it is inevitable that from time to time throughout the debates we shall have references to the old Scots Parliament. There is no connection between what is proposed and the old Scots Parliament of what was then an independent State. It is foolish to refer to the future Scottish Assembly as a giant which has been wakened from a sleep of 250 years. This is a different concept, a different form of government. It has no genealogy going back to the previous Scottish Parliament. The Government have made no pretension that sovereignty resides with the Westminster Parliament in the way that it resided at Westminster in the case of the so-called Parliament of Northern Ireland.
It is interesting that when the House of Commons considered the elected body in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 it chose the term "Assembly" and abandoned the term "Parliament" which had appeared, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) reminded us, in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. That was an entirely appropriate description of the body there created just as it is an appropriate description of the body here created.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene on a friendly point? In view of what he said, will he make it clear that if we get the Assembly there will be no question of the first meeting being held at the beautiful, old, revered Parliament House in Edinburgh, but that it will take place in the High School? Does he agree that those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who is not present, who are pressing for the the first meeting to take place symbolically in the beautiful Parliament House are in fact misleading people?

Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend not only for the question but for the friendly way in which it was put. I am not as surprised as he might think. I take the point about the High School. It would be psychologically inappropriate for the Scottish Assembly to be set up in the home of the old Scots Parliament.

Apart from the psychology, it would be difficult to evict the court of session and the very powerful men who work within it. As a former worker in that establishment, I know how difficult it would be.
The Liberal Party fears that the Scottish Assembly will be dominated by Glasgow trade unionists and Edinburgh lawyers—a magnificent combination. I do not know why there should be any fear about that. The Leader of the Liberal Party appears to express surprise. Recently, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) suggested that being an English lawyer, he was in a magnificent position to be impartial.
We are anxious not to create false expectations about what the Assembly can do. Indeed, the Government have not created any false expectations in that respect. The Assembly will have important and substantial powers. Those powers will be exercised within the continuing framework of the unity of the United Kingdom and under the sovereignty of this Parliament. It is as well to get that correct from the start. Therefore, we should resist the amendment.
The debate, perhaps inevitably, strayed on to other matters. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), if I may reply to him in a friendly fashion, asked me to comment on the proposition that there should be a House of Commons with 780 Members. My comment is that it would be an absurdity.
We had some discussion about the Welsh aspect of this matter, into which I do not feel entitled to go. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) put down an amendment seeking to change "Assembly" to "Council".

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not feel entitled to go into the Welsh aspect. Does that mean that, on all the important points which were made on the Welsh aspect, we shall have a reply from the Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Smith: I was referring to the language point. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I should not raise that point too sharply as my right hon. Friend is a fluent Welsh speaker and I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman is. It would


be important if matters of substance were raised.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: They are matters of substance.

Mr. Smith: I do not think that they are. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech without making sedentary baying interruptions which are characteristic of most of his contributions in this Chamber.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I apologise for interrupting the Minister in mid-flight. I have become concerned about the comings and goings on the Treasury Bench. The Government Deputy Chief Whip arrived after my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) got up to speak for the Opposition. My hon. Friend made it clear that he did not intend winding up the debate. The Government Deputy Chief Whip did not see the number of hon. Members who were trying to catch your eye, Mr. Godman Irvine. I hope that the Government Deputy Chief Whip, having heard my point of order and the appeal for a reply from the Secretary of State for Wales, will not be so rash as to try to stifle further discussion on this important group of amendments.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. What makes anyone suppose that the Government Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison), is not here to ensure that we have an objective hearing?

Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has a sauce, especially as he has not taken part in the debate and therefore is not in a position to know where the Government Deputy Chief Whip has been. My hon. Friend has been in and out of the Chamber during the debate, which is more than I can say for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Goodhew: rose—

Mr. Smith: I am not prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare—who as well as attending the debate contributed to the debate—put forward an interesting amendment to change the name of the elected body to "Council".

With respect, I think that that follows his theory that we should be having an all-purpose—

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I apologise for interrupting the Minister again, but I really must protest, to get the record straight. I have been sitting in the Chamber throughout the debate. If the Minister has not been noticing that—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare has a view as to how Government should be reorganised in Wales, a view that does not entirely coincide, to put it mildly, with the proposals in the Bill. His view is that there ought to be a reform of local government, with an all-purpose top tier, as I understand it. "Council" would be appropriate for that. Perhaps he tabled his amendment to canvass his arguments, but I do not think that it would be appropriate for the proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I intended it to be a probing amendment because this is what the Labour Party's policy for Wales was in the evidence that it submitted to the Royal Commission. I wanted to know why we had moved away from that concept to that which is now contained in the Bill.

Mr. Smith: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a full part in the discussion of policy on Wales. He is in as good a position to answer that question himself as he is to ask me to answer it for him. His proposition that there should be a "Council" follows from his view of what the Assembly should be. I accept that it was a probing amendment.
Scottish nationalists and Welsh nationalists are trying to make these Assemblies look more powerful than they will be, and it is part of the suggestion that we ought to be moving towards the creation of separate nation States. I was fascinated by the Welsh nationalist proposition that somehow there is a difference between full national status and having some sort of independent State. I should have thought that either it is an independent State or it is not.
The SNP is at least clear on that point. SNP Members argue for a sovereign independent State. I am not at all clear what it is that the Welsh nationalists propose.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Perhaps I can help the Minister. He seems to be rather obsessed with 19th century nationalist concepts. Surely in the 1970s we must be looking for a formula which guarantees nationalities a status which can give them sufficient power to manage their economic affairs and to have external relationships—for example, as a member State of the EEC. That would not be in any way, as the Minister described, economic separation and independent sovereignty.

Mr. Smith: I would see how one can give some status to a nationality, but I am not sure what that has to do with government. One would have to spell out the government institutions which would flow from whatever it is that Welsh nationalists want to achieve. Wales would have to become a sovereign independent State as a condition of membership of the EEC.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Has the Minister any idea how one can have nationality without having a sovereign nation? Surely one cannot have a nationality without having the sovereign nation to back it.

Mr. Smith: With respect, there are many examples of that around the world. We have them in the United Kingdom where there is a Scottish nation and, I think, a Welsh nation. However, it does not follow from that—and this is where we part company with the nationalists—that one must create an independent nation State to reflect that state of nationhood.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The purpose of the SNP amendment was to include a change in name of the Assembly, from "Scottish Assembly" to "National Assembly for Scotland", to represent the fact that Scotland is a nation. That was the extent of the amendment, and it goes no further than that.

Mr. Smith: I think that there has been a lack of co-ordination. I do not know whether it came about from a failure of

the confidential discussions that always seem to be taking place between the SNP and Plaid Cymru, between SNP lines and Plaid Cymru lines in proposing these arguments. One must be a little suspicious if a Welsh nationalist puts forward a change of nomenclature with a declared difference of political meaning and a Scottish nationalist says that he espouses a change of political meaning one is entitled to suspect taking the Scottish nationalist at face value. The hon. Gentleman says that he believes in devolution. With respect, I do not think that he does. He believes in independence.
Before the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) becomes more agitated, let me say that he keeps saying to Members from English constituencies, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), that they ought to go to Scotland and find out something. I am not quite sure what it is that they are supposed to find out. However, although my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool does not reach total unanimity with me on the proposition in the Bill, I hope that if he wants to find out what is going on in Scotland and to assess public opinion there, he will consult other hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies, such as myself, and—

Mr. Dalyell: And me.

Mr. Smith: And my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool might find it more advantageous to take a wider sample than just myself and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, because he might get some slightly different conclusions from us on some matters.
However, it is part of the potential of the SNP, in its conduct in the House of Commons, that it seeks to present itself as the exclusive champion of the people of Scotland. It is not. Hon. Members of other parties who represent people in Scotland vigorously assert the interests of their constituents and, indeed, Scotland throughout Parliament. Sometimes they fail to get the same publicity for their efforts, but they make those efforts none the less.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North reminded us of the importance of stressing the powers conferred upon the Assemblies. These Assemblies will be an exciting new


venture in our constitution. They will give real power and influence to the Scottish people and the Welsh people to shape a very large part of the government that affects them directly, but they will also, both Scotland and Wales, keep firmly within the context of the United kingdom without diminishing the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Because the provisions in the Bill reflect adequately what the intention is, an intention that the House of Commons has already approved by the substantial majority that it gave the Bill on Second

Reading, we ask the Committee to reject the propositions put forward in the amendment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question he now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 155, Noes 63.

DivisionNo.49.]
AYES
[8.07 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Freeson, Reginald
Pardoe, John


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce
Park, George


Archer, Peter
Gilbert, Dr John
Parker, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Gourlay, Harry
Price, William (Rugby)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Graham, Ted
Reid, George


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bates, Alf
Harper, Joseph
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bean, R. E.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Beith, A. J.
Hayman, Mrs Helena
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Henderson, Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Bishop, E. S.
Hooley, Frank
Rose, Paul B.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rowlands, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sadgemore, Brian


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Small, William


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Campbell, Ian
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stallard, A. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Stoddart, David


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Stott, Roger


Conlan, Bernard
Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Corbett, Robin
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thompson, George


Crawford, Douglas
Lipton, Marcus
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Loyden, Eddie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Davidson, Arthur
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacCormick, Iain
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ward, Michael


Dempsey, James
McElhone, Frank
Watkins, David


Doig, Peter
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Watt, Hamish


Dormand, J. D.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Welsh, Andrew


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
White, James (Pollok)


Edge, Geoff
Madden, Max
Whitehead, Phillip


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mikardo, Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Evans, John (Newton)
Molloy, William
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Woodall, Alec


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Newens, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Noble, Mike
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ogden, Eric



Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ford, Ben
Ovenden, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Forrester, John
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Benyon, W.
Dalyell, Tam
Fairgrieve, Russell


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brittan, Leon
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Brotherton, Michael
Drayson, Burnaby
Gardiner, George (Reigate)




Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McCrindle, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Goodhew, Victor
Macfarlane, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Griffiths, Eldon
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebblt, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard.


Holland, Philip
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Penhaligon, David
Younger, Hon George


Kinnock, Neil
Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rhodes James, R.
Mr. Nigel Lawson and


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. Peter Morrison.


Leadbitter, Ted

Question accordingly agreed to.


 Mr. Goodhew rose—


The Temporary Chairman (Mr. A. P. Constain):I cannot take point of order before putting the Question.


Question put accordingiy, That the amendment be made:—


The committee divided: Ayes 24, Noes 156.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
[8.18p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Crawford, Douglas
Reid, George
Watt, Hamish


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Welsh, Andrew


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Smith, [...]il (Rochdale)
Wigley, Dafydd


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Henderson, Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald



Hooson, Emlyn
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Thompson, George
Mr. A. J. Beith and


MacCormick, Iain
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Russell Johnston.


Pardoe, John






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt Hon C.(Anglesey)


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Archer, Peter
Dormand, J. D.
Hunter, Adam


Armstrong, Ernest
Drayson, Burnaby
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Ashton, Joe
Dunlop, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Eadie, Alex
John, Brynmor


Bates, Alf
Edge, Geoff
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bean, R. E.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bishop, E. S.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Emery, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald


Bradford, Rev Robert
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lambie, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (Newton)
Lamond, James


Brotherton, Michael
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchanan, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lipton, Marcus


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ford, Ben
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell, Ian
Forrester, John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Canavan, Dennis
Freeson, Reginald
McCusker, H.


Carmichael, Neil
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carson, John
George, Bruce
McElhone, Frank


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Dr John
Macfarlane, Neil


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Golding, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Clemitson, Ivor
Goodhew, Victor
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol)
Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cohen, Stanley
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Madden, Max


Coleman, Donald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marks, Kenneth


Conlan, Bernard
Graham, Ted
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Grist, Ian
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molyneaux, James


Davidson, Arthur
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Holland, Philip
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley







Noble, Mike
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ogden, Eric
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Ward, Michael


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Rowlands, Ted
Watkins, David


Ovenden, John
Sedgemore, Brian
White, James (Pollok)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Phillip


Palmer, Arthur
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Park, George
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'[...]ch)


Parker, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Parry, Robert
Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stallard, A. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Price, William (Rugby)
Stoddart, David
Woodall, Alec


Raison, Timothy
Stem, Roger
Woof, Robert


Richardson, Miss Jo
Strang, Gavin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberta, Albert (Normanton)
Tebbit, Norman



Roberta, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roderick, Caerwyn
Tinn, James
Mr. Peter Snape and


Rooker, J. W.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Rose, Paul B.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Costain. It may not be within your knowledge, but when the Deputy Chief Whip moved the closure a number of my hon. Friends, who had been present throughout the debate and who wished to speak, were trying to catch the eye of the Chair. I hope that that will be taken into account when it comes to considering whether we should debate the motion, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Peter Emery: So that the Government may have the opportunity of negativing Amendment No. 521, I shall move it formally.

Amendment proposed: No. 521, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Scottish Assembly' and insert 'three Scottish Assemblies'.—[Mr. Emery.]

Amendment negatived.

The Temporary Chairman: Before I call Amendment No. 79 may I inform the Committee that the Chairman of Ways and Means has accepted a manuscript amendment to it, namely, in line 2, after first "one" insert "initial". There are copies of the amendment in the Vote Office.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Costain. Will you tell us who has tabled the manuscript amendment?

The Chairman: Mr. Harry Ewing.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Costain. Is the amendment intelligible? With the amendment, the passage would read:
one initial member for Orkney and one for Shetland".

I do not know whether that would be taken to mean one initial member for Shetland.

The Chairman: That is what the amendment says, and I presume that the Government will explain to the Committee in due course why they have tabled it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 1, line 23, at end insert:
'except that in the case of the constituency of Orkney and Shetland there shall be one member for Orkney and one for Shetland'.

The Chairman: With this we are taking the following amendments:
No. 314, in page 1, line 23, at end insert:
'save in the case of Orkney and Shetland, which shall have one initial member each'.
No. 518, in Schedule 1, page 70, line 11, at end insert:
'and, in particular, in the case of Orkney and Shetland, each island area shall comprise one Assembly constituency'.

Mr. Grimond: I hope that the explanation from an official source will go a long way, if not the whole way, towards giving me what I ask for. I ask that Orkney and Shetland should be separately represented at the Assembly. Were it not for the population figures they would have been represented separately in this Parliament. The two groups of islands are a considerable distance apart, but their total population is only between 38,000 and 40,000, roughly equally divided. Therefore, each group could hardly claim to have a representative in the House of Commons.
Under the Bill, each existing constituency will return two Members. This is


an obvious opportunity for dividing Shetland from Orkney and giving each group of islands one Member each at the Assembly instead of two Members between them. That would not create a precedent, because for many years Shetland did not have a representative in the House of Commons because the Shetland electorate was too poor to qualify until the 1830s. Now things have changed and it is considerably richer.
In case there should be any doubt, the distance from Kirkwall, the capital of Orkney, to Lerwick, the capital of Shetland, is over 100 miles. There are about 10 Shetland islands that have a population of more than one or two, and at least 12 Orkney islands. I speak from personal experience when I say that in a General Election campaign it is impossible to get through all the islands and to hold meetings in the evenings. It is difficult enough to get through them at any time. I do not know whether many Ministers have been to Foula lately, but no doubt it would do their stomachs good were they to attempt it. It is a very difficult region to cover.
No one can deny that now is the time to divide this constituency, whose extent is equivalent to the distance between London and York, although its population is small. In many ways I should be sorry to see the constituency divided, even for the purposes of the Assembly.
In its time the constituency has, oddly enough, been represented by notable men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for those cheers. It is believed that Charles James Fox was elected for the Northern Burghs, and a remarkable Member called Mr. Wason sat for Orkney and Shetland for many years. I hope that I do not do his descendants any libel by remarking that he constantly knitted in the House, a sensible thing to do. Think of the amount of knitting that might have been done last night if only that valuable custom had continued! I am told that he also developed a remarkable technique when kissing the babies of the more influential people, succeeding of passing half a sovereign into the babies' mouths. A regular scene after he had left was that of mothers holding their babies upside down and shaking them to see what emerged. Perhaps we

may now have three Members adopting his interesting custom.
I return to the serious point. The first difficulty is that of travel. Even on the ground Shetland is 70 miles from one end to the other, and some other islands are big and not easy to cover in one evening. Further, while Shetland depends largely upon wool and fishing, Orkney is an agricultural island or group of islands and the staple of Orkney has always been its cattle. Although Orkney and Shetland have similar histories, they have different problems and different industries, and they deserve different representation in the Scottish Assembly.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will look as favourably upon the amendment as it so far appears they are content to do. I have no desire to insist upon the exact wording of the amendment. For all we know, the method of election in Scotland may be altered by the end of the Committee stage or in the future. But the time has come to give separate representation to the islands of Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it intended that the Assembly, if it comes into being, should be full time in the sense that representatives of Orkney or Shetland would have to have a home base in Edinburgh, or that it should be much more of a part-time Assembly, making it possible for representatives of such places, and anywhere outside driving distance of a night of Edinburgh, to remain in their own homes? May we have a statement of precisely what is in the Government's mind? Is it to be an Assembly that meets for 40 weeks in the year, five days a week, or much more of a part-time Assembly? I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will comment.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) for coming here tonight during his convalescence and standing by his constituents. He said that Orkney and Shetland had been represented by distinguished men. May I say what a distinguished man he is in deporting himself in such a manner tonight and on previous occasions?
Whilst it may appear from the manuscript amendment that the Government


are moving a little to accommodate the Orkney and Shetland islands, a case should nevertheless be made. Representation in an Assembly may be entirely different from representation in this House, but a population of 30,000 is not the absolute criterion. We must consider the enormous potential of these islands. Since the Isle of Man is a self-governing and independent State, the least that can be expected for these islands is separate representation. As the islands have decided to associate closely with Scotland and to participate in the Assembly, there are three basic reasons for their having separate representation—their political development and the enormous potential of the islands. The third is the need to safeguard their entrenched rights.
The North Sea oil potential is enormous. It would not be repetition to refer to the potential in this quarter. Although the population of these islands is minute, the enormous potential is a reason for them having the ability to argue their case in the Assembly.
The following North Sea oil fields in the United Kingdom sector are off the Shetland Islands: Alwyn, Beryl, Bruce, Brent, Cormorant, Crawford, Dunlin, Heather, Hutton, Ninian, Magnus, Murchison, Statfjord, Tern and Thistle. This area will include six commercial fields, 10 significant named prospects and 12 others, unnamed—a total of 28 fields. That is a significant total. By comparison, in the United Kingdom area, up to the median line with Scotland there are four commercial fields, three significant named fields and eight unnamed ones—a total of 15. The Brae field of block 16/7 would probably fall into the Orkney sector.
As I said on Second Reading, if one takes into account the commercial fields alone the Scottish area would have about 3,190 million barrels, or 38 per cent. of the total. The Shetlands area would have 4,998 million barrels or 60 per cent. of the total. The English area would have a minute share.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: There is none.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Lady says that there is none. According to my calculations of the commercial fields, the English

share would be 120 million barrels or 1·4 per cent.
I was impressed when the Minister of State, Department of Energy, told my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) the other day in Written Answer:
In the broadest terms, I estimate that 50 per cent. of the North Sea oil would be landed in the Shetlands, 15 per cent. in the Orkneys and 25 per cent. in the mainland of Scotland, while some 10 per cent. would be loaded into tankers at sea and landed at different ports."—[Official Report, 17th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 1.]
We know that there is a 36-inch pipeline to Sullom Voe which will carry about 1 million barrels a day by 1980, by which date the Shetlands will be receiving 60 per cent. of the total United Kingdom sector oil. Later, 730 million barrels a year will be flowing from the complexes of Brent, Ninian and Statfjord. Therefore, not only have the Shetland Islands, in conjunction with the United Kingdom, enormous offshore potential. some of which is not yet being developed: they also have interests in two major pipelines from Brent and Ninian and a substantial tank farm at Sullom Voe. There is also the possibility of a major refinery centre. Whether the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will support that. I do not know. It could be one of the largest in Northern Europe, and could rival Europort. On these grounds alone, the citizens of Orkney and Shetland can claim legitimately to have separate representations.
8.45 p.m.
There is another argument. I have listened with interest to Members of the Scottish National Party in numerous debates when they have proclaimed on these matters with a rather divided voice. For example, one hon. Member claims that Scotland should go completely independent, while the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has indicated that he is quite prepared to concede autonomy to Shetland and Orkney, because Scotland has sufficient oil on its own.
In legislation such at this we must look further ahead, and ensure that the islands keep their entrenched rights and safeguards. We must maintain their autonomy and financial privileges. They have a perfect right to present their cases


separately with differing degrees of emphasis.

Mr. George Reid: In view of the negotiations between the United Kingdom and French Governments, would the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) allow the same rights to the people of the Channel Islands and the Scilly Isles?

Mr. Skeet: The negotiations between France and the United Kingdom are at present before arbitration and we have not the remotest idea which way the decision will go. According to the 1958 International Convention, lines have been clearly established between the median line and the projections from the coast which would determine accurately the situation between the United Kingdom and France.

Mr. Reid: Is it right that the French Government, given the United Kingdom's present policy, should have only three miles of exclusive limits off the Channel Islands?

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to estimate what the arbitrators will decide. It would be very interesting if I could figure that out.
If the ultimate aspirations of the Scottish National Party are achieved and Scotland is completely independent, arbitration or representations to the International Court in The Hague or elsewhere could last for many years in determining precisely where the lines should be drawn. What is apparent from the International Convention and the Continental Shelf Act 1964 is that the United Kingdom would succeed. The Scottish Assembly will not be sovereign. The sovereign body of the United Kingdom is the House of Commons at Westminster.
The Zetland County Council Act 1974 and the Orkney County Council Act 1974 cover a number of matters such as the acquisition of land, the regulation of harbour areas and financial matters. These two Acts are the charter of the islands and any tampering with them by the Assembly would go against the fundamental basis of matters which the islands consider essentially their birthright. If they have separate representation in the Assembly in future they will be able to put their case forcefully. If

they were to be jointly representative, the situation would not be as satisfactory because different legislation would apply.
I wish to refer to some correspondence which I have had with the Shetland County Council. I shall try to summarise the county council's case set out in a letter dated 29th November 1976. It poses the question whether, if there is to be a further reorganisation, local government will eventually be abolished? Is Strathclyde, which controls about 50 per cent. of the total, to be altered?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Yes.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Lady says "Yes", but if that is the result this could be extremely serious for the Shetland Islands.
I appreciate that the significance of the Bill lies in the fact that many of these matters remain within the United Kingdom, but we may find later that some of these powers in a modified form may slip over to the Assembly. In that case what would happen in Sullom Voe where there are tank farms and other facilities? Will they be handed over to a third party?
I should like to read directly from the letter that I received from the Shetland County Council:
A Scottish Assembly may vary the rate support grant distribution formulae in a manner which favours the highly populated and deprived areas of Scotland at the expense of Shetland. In addition, whereas the Council are reasonably assured that the distinction between disturbance and other monies intended specifically to protect Shetland's future and grants intended specifically to promote the national interest in Shetland is understood by Government, they are far from assured that this distinction will be recognised and perpetuated by a Scottish Assembly.
Therefore, it is indispensable that representatives from the two islands should be in the Assembly to state their case and to see that there is no fundamental alteration in the basic rights which are there established.
In allocating block grant and giving limited revenue-raising powers the Assembly may choose to allocate more finance for its own use and less for local government. Alternatively, there may be a surcharge on local authority taxation, as suggested by the Layfield Report, and that could lead to unrest among ratepayers, particularly if no additional benefits accrue to Shetland.
I hope that these matters are apparent to the Government and that they will take the view that the islands should be put in a special position because of their potential in the Assembly. I hope that they will be enabled to speak out and conduct prolonged consultations on these important matters.
I wish to support the Liberal amendment. Unfortunately, since I am paired, I cannot do so, but in spirit and thought I am behind them on this amendment. I must make that clear in case somebody refers to the record and my name is absent from it. It is only right that a Member from an English constituency should say that he is prepared to support the claims of the Shetland Islands because he sees justification in their arguments.
The Government have brought before Parliament an impossible Bill. What they could do for the Shetland Islands would he to adopt some of the later amendments on these matters; but the least they can do is to ensure that these islands have a safe future, certainly as safe as if they had remained fully within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Leadbitter: I rise to ask a question of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I think that with this very refreshing approach he has relieved the House of many hours of long debate. There is personal respect for him on both sides of the House and we all respect his judgment and care for his constituency. I should like to ask for further aid in a matter that has appeared to produce a spontaneous reaction of support in the Committee.
His suggestion was clear, but there is a likelihood that a problem will arise from it. Further amendments in the group under discussion suggest that Orkney and Shetland should be separate island Assembly constituencies. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has served in the House of Commons for many years efficiently, adequately, capably and to the satisfaction of all his constituents in both islands. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will not strictly adhere to the amendment if the Government respond to the general principle and if there is a state of equiescence and agreement among hon. Members. But does he not see that there might be some difficulty if the islands

become two constituencies for Assembly representation but a single constituency for parliamentary representation? Would this not create future problems for parliamentary and Assembly representation? Would it be possible if there is general agreement on this to explore the possibility of having a one constituency arrangement for both the islands while allowing them two representatives in the Assembly, thus retaining the one constituency basis?

Mr. Galbraith: The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was not only first class it illustrated the value of this United Kingdom Parliament, where it is possible for Members from as far away from the Orkneys and Shetlands as Bedford—a landlocked constituency—to give valuable and interesting dispositions on the situation in that remote northern part of the country. I agreed strongly with the warm tribute that the hon. Member paid to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who moved the amendment. I hope later to explain to the Committee why I support that amendment.
The main point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford was that these two islands should have separate representation because of the great growth of industry resulting from the exploitation of oil and its related products. My hon. Friend made that the basis of his argument. But even if there were no oil at all in the islands, I would still support the amendment. I hope that I shall not bore the Committee, but I want to explain the reason why I support the amendment. It has been the subject of a theme that I have stressed repeatedly in our debates.
There will be a body in the Assembly that will not be impartial. That will be so because the vast majority of Assemblymen, or Members of Parliament, or whatever they may be called, will represent the industrial belt of Scotland—the part of Scotland that I represent—that is, Strathclyde.
9.0 p.m.
No one has a higher regard for the people from Strathclyde, Scotland—even when they sit on the other side of the House—than I, but if we have an Assembly dominated by a large number


of people from a small part of the country with a single industrial interest, it will be bad for the rest of Scotland. The Government are making it worse by proposing that some of these industrial seats should have not two but three Members, thereby emphasising still further the domination of the industrial area over rural districts and far-flung parts such as Orkney and Shetland.
I welcome the amendment, because I am afraid that the Assembly cannot be impartial, and the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland adds additional Members from outlying areas. The principle behind the amendment should be extended to other distant areas.
I should have preferred the Orkneys and the Shetlands to go their own way and not be forced under the umbrella of the Assembly. The islanders know that this House is impartial. That is why they wanted to remain under our umbrella. No one can claim that the bulk of Scottish people living in the central industrial belt care a damn about the Highlands, the difficulties of rural transport or other problems that concern hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).

Mr. Dalyell: Whatever the arguments on this amendment, does the hon. Gentleman realise that many constituents in the central belt care deeply about the Highlands and about Orkney and Shetland?

Mr. Grimond: I may have been a little discourteous to hon. Members who have raised subjects that go rather wider than I had intended to go in the amendment. There are two local authorities, one in Orkney and one in Shetland. They are quite separate. I am not trying to extend the representation of Orkney and Shetland, I am trying to divide them and provide for one Member each.

Mr. Galbraith: I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I should like the outlying areas to have additional Members, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman merely wishes to split up the representation of Orkney and Shetland. I cannot support the amendment strongly as I would otherwise have done, because I believe that Orkney and Shetland should have two Assemblymen each, but I shall support the amendment anyway.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I support the perfectly sensible, reasonable and logical proposal of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). These islands are far away, and I am ashamed to say that I have visited them only once. That was after my election to this House in November 1967. I went because I thought that as a Scottish Member of Parliament it was wrong to come all the way to Westminster without knowing the feelings of the inhabitants of this most distant place.
I have always treasured the memory of my visit to this unique set of islands. They are individualistic and different. I am sorry to say that I have not been back. I should like to return, and the fact that I have not done so is not the fault of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who is most hospitable in inviting all hon. Members to his constituency.
These islands have been used by the Westminster Government in time of war and they have been left with dereliction. As a child at school I learned the name Scapa Flow. That name should strike terror into everyone who is concerned about dereliction. The islands co-operated and assisted, but now they have been left with dereliction.
Oil has been found at the bottom of the garden, and though it may be irrelevant to this debate, perhaps I may spell out SNP policy on the subject. Since my party was founded 50 years ago we have recognised that the two groups of islands are unique. We have said that they should have as much autonomy as they want. Our policy in that respect has never changed.
Hon. Members have tried in this House to introduce a red herring by saying that if the islands were given their independence, or if they went back to Denmark, that would be against the SNP because the SNP wants the oil. I say "No". They can have the oil. They can all be billionaires if they want. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland can be the head of a billionaire group of islands. The only thing that matters to my party is that the people of these islands should have the right to be individualistic, and if that means that they must have Beryl and all the other oilfields that it seems are always named


after women, they are perfectly entitled in my party's view to have them.
I care about every part of my very distinguished country, and I care about this distinguished unique set of islands. The discovery of oil may not he to their particular advantage because of the greed of mankind. The islands have been used before and they might be used again.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has bravely come here in spite of his poor health and has put forward a modest request. If this Committee votes against it, it is not a Committee worth coming to. Anyone who votes against the amendment is not prepared to recognise the beauty of individuality.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I note the hon. Lady's honesty about SNP policy, but may I clarify the matter? As a result of what she said will she and her colleagues now stop using their slogan "Scotland's Oil" and refer instead to the fact that they have only one-third of what was Scottish oil?

Mrs. Ewing: Certainly. That is absolutely certain. That is SNP policy, but no one has listened to us.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Ewing: I must be allowed to answer one point at a time.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the hon. Lady give way on this point?

Mrs. Ewing: I have not even had a chance to answer the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). One at a time, please. I shall take on all corners, but I cannot take them all on at once.
The SNP means this policy, because it is not a question of oil. Oil has been a useful propaganda exercise to destroy the myth of Scottish poverty that was put about in this honourable House when I was previously a Member. For three years, many hon. Members said "We would agree with the hon. Lady if only it would not be awfully bad for the poor old Scots who need to put out their hands for handouts." Then, suddenly, oil was found. I was in the Scottish National Party when I was 17 years old and Scottish oil had never been heard of then.
This point about oil is a most interesting one. It happens that a lot of the oil is around the Orkneys and Shetlands and many clever international jurists—and I am a lawyer myself by trade—

Mr. Skeet: By profession.

Mrs. Ewing: Englishmen made it a trade and Scotsmen made it a profession. We taught it universally while the English taught it as a craft. I make no apology for saying that I am a lawyer by trade, but if I were to be awfully quibbling about it there is quite a set of international legal agreements which say, cleverly, that Orkney and Shetland are too small as an international entity to have their own oil. But the SNP view is that, if Orkney and Shetland wish to have autonomy, let them have it. If that means that they get their oil, let them have it. Strangely enough, there plenty of oil—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. I know that oil has been mentioned, but we are debating an amendment about the number of representatives. I hope that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) will return to the point.

Mrs. Ewing: I have been asked about oil, and. I hope I am entitled to defend myself in this House.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not want to attack the hon. Lady, but, before she obeys your ruling, Mr. Crawshaw, and leaves the subject of oil, she made the very interesting statement that, if these islands were to become autonomous, they could take the oil at the bottom of the garden with them.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) will not lead the hon. Lady further astray from the point under discussion. There is not much point in the Chair bringing the hon. Lady to order if other hon. Members try to extend the debate even further.

Mr. Galbraith: Would you allow me, Mr. Crawshaw, to clarify one point? If these islands, instead of being autonomous, wished to continue as part of the United Kingdom, but Scotland was autonomous, would the hon. Lady still allow the oil to go with them?

Mrs. Ewing: Of course. I am a democrat, unlike some hon. Members. Therefore, I accept the rule of democracy that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith) has just posed. I do not know how often the hon. Member has been to the islands of Orkney and Shetland—

Mr. Galbraith: The same number of times as the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Ewing: If he has been the same number of times, that is once.
When I was there, there was a very interesting set of slogans painted on walls. Apart from one which said "Down with Willy Ross", which I am too polite to mention, there was one saying "Back to Denmark".
9.15 p.m.
A gentleman, whom the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will know well, telephoned me. I asked him "Is this 'Back to Denmark' movement very powerful?" He said "No." I said "But there are slogans everywhere. Have you many members?" He said "Just me". I said "It is strange that we should have all this. Why have you done it?" He said "That was just a kite that I flew."
In my opinion, these islands are not interested in going back to Denmark. I base my opinion not on my visit, but on the visits of many of my colleagues.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Ewing: Certainly. This must be the last intervention.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Lady talked about dereliction at Scapa. I wondered precisely what was involved. Is the idea that battleships which have not been raised should be raised? That point should be expanded.
I listened carefully and seriously to the hon. Lady's important statement on oil. I ask this without bad taste or anything. In the light of what she said, if she means it, does she not think that she ought to prevail upon the SNP to remove the posters in our constituencies portraying "The old man, it is his oil. The old woman, it is her oil. The kids, it is their oil."? Frankly, those posters do not

coincide with the statement made by the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to reply. I might otherwise be out of order. Those posters could be based on the Forties field alone. Hardly a pennyworth of benefit is going to people who are dying of cold in Scotland or to the slum dwellers who are still with me just as they were with my father who was a member of the ILP. They are still the same as when I was a child. The posters are right. There is enough in the Forties. If the Orcadians and Shetlanders, including the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, would like to be billionaires, I say good luck to them. They have suffered so much that they are perfectly entitled to it. I pray every night "Let England find oil in her own sector of the North Sea and she might get the chip off her shoulder and we might have a more dignified debate".

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Ewing: No. I have given way three times.

Mr. Brotherton: Will she give way on this point?

Mrs. Ewing: I should like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but the Chairman might get annoyed.

Mr. Brotherton: In Anglia, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), 93 per cent. of all natural gas consumed in this country comes ashore. So far as I know, nobody has ever talked about English gas.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I have pointed out that we are debating numbers for constituencies. I do not want hon. Members intervening and widening the debate even further. I have pointed this out to the hon. Lady. I hope that she will come to the amendment.

Mrs. Ewing: These are two unique sets of islands. I have spoken up for them as best I can, and I do not in any sense represent them. I represent a constituency quite a bit south of Orkney and Shetland, although quite a bit north of this place.
When the House of Commons stops recognising and understanding the unique individuality of these two sets of islands, it is a disgrace. The amendment is reasonable. It is not asking for anything extra. It is asking only that we recognise that an Orcadian does not feel the same as a Shetlander. Those islands are far away from this place. The islanders trust those of us who are here at the moment to do them justice. I ask the Committee to support the amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Perhaps it would help the Committee if I intervened at this stage to explain the Government's attitude to the amendment and to move the manuscript amendment that I placed in the hands of the Clerk of the House this afternoon.
First, I should indicate that it is the Government's intention to accent the amendment. My reason for tabling the manuscript amendment—as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) rightly cottoned on to, if that is the correct expression—was that technically the amendment was slightly deficient, inasmuch as we are discussing the initial elections to the Assembly. Therefore, technically, to bring the amendment into order, it was necessary for the Government to table the manuscript amendment, which I hope that the Committee will accept.

Mr. George Younger: What does it do?

Mr. Ewing: The manuscript amendment inserts the word "initial" after the first "one" in the proposed amendment That is because we are dealing with the initial elections. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
When we saw the amendment we were immediately attracted by its provisions. I had been to the Shetlands and had discussed devolution with the Shetland Island Council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his former capacity as Minister of State, has in recent months been to the Shetlands. One of the points put to us most forcibly was that it was considered that should the Assembly come about it would be appropriate for Orkney and Shetland to have a member in the Assembly representing each island area. As the right

hon. Gentleman rightly says, the islands are probably 100 miles apart. There is a fair distance between the two sets of islands.
However, I must also make it clear that in accepting the amendment we are in no circumstances creating a precedent. We do not see a situation in the other constituencies in Scotland that would qualify for the treatment that we are prepared to concede to Orkney and Shetland and which I now suggest we should concede.
I should not welcome our acceptance of the amendment being quoted to us as a precedent, should any other right hon. or hon. Members suggest to the Government that their constituencies should have precisely the same treatment. We have examined the situation and we do not see any other part of Scotland that is unique in a similar respect. We are talking about a unique situation in Orkney and Shetland.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would it comfort the Minister to know that we do not see any other part of Scotland that is also unique in the way in which Orkney and Shetland is? Does he have in mind any other possible precedent that worries him?

Mr. Harry Ewing: I assure the hon. Lady that everything she has said tonight has been of tremendous comfort to me. I am sure that most of the statements that she made in her enthralling speech, which took up the last 10 or 15 minutes, she will see appearing in print time and again between now and the next General Election. I should like to dispose of her speech by saying that I got the impression that it was directed not particularly to this Committee but to the islands of Orkney and Shetland. I think that in the hon. Lady's most generous moments she would agree with that. However, I think that it was also directed to her hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid). who is on record as saying that should Shetland gain its independence, the SNP would use international law in order to stop the islands taking with them the oil that is in the Shetland basin.

Mr. Reid: It would be useful if the hon. Gentleman quoted exactly aright the newspaper that both of us share between out constituencies. I said that it


would be "dubious" in international practice, if Shetland ever gained its independence, that she would get all the oil. I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to what is happening in the Aegean Sea, the Scilly Isles and the Channel Islands, where international law takes differing views on the small land area and the population base, and on the other hand, the North Atlantic, where there is a rather different situation, and the Farces, which have a unique relationship with Denmark. Surely that is quite possible in an independent Scotland.

Mr. Ewing: Despite our political differences, the hon. Gentleman and I share an amenable friendship. I think he will accept that none of us has the power to rewrite the columns of the Falkirk Herald. We are both friendly with the editor of the Herald but none of us has the power to rewrite the Herald's columns.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Unfortunately.

Mr. Ewing: The Herald's report of the meeting that took place in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is clear and specific in that the hon. Gentleman made it clear that in his view international law would prevent Orkney and Shetland from taking with them the oil that is presently located in the Shetland basin if they were to become an independent State.
It seemed that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was directing her speech not particularly to the House of Commons but to the Orcadians and Shetlanders and the SNP, so that the SNP can resolve its internal difficulties and differences over its attitude to Orkney and Shetland.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made his usual brief contribution. He asked whether the Government consider that the Assembly should be full time or part time. The length of the Assembly's sessions and the procedures that it will adopt are basically matters for the Assembly. Perhaps I can put the mind of the Committee at rest by saying that in our calculations of the staff that will be required for the Assembly, we have worked on the basis of what could loosely be described as a one-shift system.

Mr. George Younger: I think that we all understand what a one-shift system means in the context of a factory, but it is extremely difficult to understand what it means in terms of an Assembly. Perhaps the Minister will explain.

Mr. Ewing: If the House of Commons were a precedent, I suppose that it would be a constant night shift, but I hope that it will not be a precedent. I am sure that this matter will become clearer as the debate proceeds and we deal with various other aspects of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we to assume for the purposes of the amendment that whoever is the Member for Orkney and whoever is the Member for Shetland will be expected to have a home in Edinburgh?

Mr. Ewing: I am not responsible for making Members' domestic arrangements. I should be treading on rather dangerous ground if I involved myself in making domestic arrangements for Members of the Assembly or Members of the House of Commons. I shall move rather rapidly from that minefield.

Mr. Younger: It is all very well having this debate in a slightly light-hearted manner, but those outside will read Hansard. We must have some explanation from the Minister about the Assembly operating on a one-shift system. Surely he can clarify this point.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ewing: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the position. We have in mind that the Assembly will meet between 10 o'clock in the morning and 6 o'clock at night, or something like that. Our calculations for the staff that will be required have been based on a day spanning those hours.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has the Minister made any calculation of the number of weeks in the year that he thinks the Assembly might meet? If so, will he tell us at some stage?

Mr. Canavan: A fortnight!

Mr. Ewing: My right hon. Friend the Lord President has great difficulty in making calculations about the number of weeks that the House of Commons


will meet. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will not expect me to become involved in calculations about the number of weeks that the Assembly will meet, or about any other aspect of the procedures of the Assembly, including how long the sessions should be.
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). It was devoted almost entirely to the relationship between the Shetlands and the oil resources in the Shetland basin. But, as has been said so often in the debate, it is stretching the rules of order to bring in this much wider issue. The amendment deals with the question of the number of members coming from a particular constituency to represent that area in the Assembly. There was much validity in what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do not think that I should go into the detail of the argument that he presented. Suffice it to say that I agree with much of what he said.
The hon. Gentleman made two particular points relating to the Zetland County Council Act 1974. He quoted from a letter which he had received in November 1976 from the island council. The Zetland County Council Act deals with matters that are not devolved—in other words, ports and harbours and energy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in replying to the Shetland Island Council, has made the point that those subjects are not devolved. I think that the reply was to the letter from which the hon. Gentleman quoted.

Mr. Skeet: The Bill leads Scotland on to the slippery slope. It is a very bad Bill. If we were absolutely satisfied that the consequences that we have discussed would not occur, I should agree with the hon. Gentleman. But if it goes the other way and complete independence is wrested from Westminster, are we not entitled to raise important matters which concern Scotland?

Mr. Ewing: It is not for me to say what matters Members are or are not entitled to raise. I am simply replying to the debate. Whoever is in the Chair is responsible for ensuring the maintenance of the rules of order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) raised an important point. The answer to it is that

the Assembly representations will be based on parliamentary constituencies. That should resolve any doubt that my hon. Friend might have.
I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). Again, we heard the argument that there is the fear in Orkney and Shetland—and I admit that the Shetland Island Council expressed it to me when I visited the Shetlands in the middle of 1976 and had discussions with the council—that they will be dominated by Assembly men or women from the central belt of Scotland.
I know that it is difficult, however much Ministers or Members of Parliament may try, to allay such fears, but the history of the consideration that the House of Commons has had—[Interruption.] Scottish representation in the House is equally dominated by Members from the central belt of Scotland. The hon. Member for Hillhead is one of them. Many Members who have been elected to represent Highlands constituencies come from the central belt. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn is a Glaswegian and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, who represents Caithness and Sutherland, is a Glaswegian.
In the central belt some Glasgow constituencies have elected Members of Parliament who were not born and brought up in Glasgow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is Dundee-born and bred. He represents a Glasgow constituency. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Gordon Wilson) is a Paisley man—I do not know of a greater mixture than that.
It is a disservice to the people of Scotland to suggest that those who come from one part have no concern for any other part. I wish that these arguments would cease, because from past experience it is clear that they have no validity. I hope that what I have said will go a long way to allay the fears of the islanders.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that some hon. Members—myself, for instance—are in the almost unique position of representing constituencies which take in part of the central industrial belt of Scotland and part of the Scottish Highlands. I have had many


letters from the Highlands part of my constituency congratulating me on my ability to represent not just my constituents in the industrial belt but also those who live above the Highlands line of Scotland.

Mr. Ewing: I represent the constituency adjoining that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). I know from first-hand experience how much the farmers, fishermen and all my hon. Friend's constituents appreciate the way in which he represents them in the House of Commons. I have no doubt that the farmers, the landowners and the owners of vast estates will be queueing up to vote for my hon. Friend at the next election.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the case he puts is astonishing? The only islands in Scotland with a genuine case for independence are the Western Islands. In the Shetland and Orkney Islands there is not one person who can speak in the language that they blether about as being their national language.

Mr. Ewing: From time to time Ministers have incredible good luck and good fortune. To his misfortune, the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has come late to the debate. He missed the new SNP policy that was announced at 9.20 pm by his hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn. After the hon. Member for Argyll has read Hansard tomorrow, he should send it immediately to his constituency party, advising the party that SNP policy changed at 9.20 pm on 26th January and suggesting that it should adjust all its printing orders accordingly.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The SNP policy with regard to Shetland and Orkney has not changed since 1926.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I do not want to continue the debate unnecessarily, because I know that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is anxious to return to his convalescence. It is obvious that the SNP is in total disarray. We have heard tonight three polices put forward by members of the SNP. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire has one policy, his hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn

another and his hon. Friend the Member for Argyll yet another. I am sorry that not all members of the SNP are here. Had they all been here I am sure that each would have advanced a different policy, and that would have been most interesting.

Mr. Reid: As a good friend of my neighbour, may I direct the Minister's attention to the small matter of geography? As far as I am aware, there are no deep-water fish in his, mine and the neighbouring constituency of West Stirlingshire. [Interruption.] I agree that there are some fresh-water fish, but not sea fish of the kind that we think of when we deal with Orkney and Shetland.
Does the Minister remember enough history to remember what Rupert of the Rhine did to the Scilly Islands and to know that the relationship between the Scilly Islands and England has less historical continuity than the 500 years history that Shetland shared with Scotland? If the Scilly Islands, in international law. were to go independent, the entire Western Approaches would become Scilly Islands waters. In the Aaegean there are the same problems between Turkey and Greece. The dispute between India and Sri Lanka on this matter was solved by making an island between the two of them a holy shrine.
In all these problems of territorial definitions in international law there are grey areas. Inside the European Community we find San Marino, Andorra and other small countries which are theoretically independent—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the Minister will not answer that last point.

Mr. Ewing: However much the hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me, I have no intention of getting the SNP out of its internal difficulties. I leave it to sort them out for itself.
I have dealt with the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn. I hope that I have answered all the questions. I said at the beginning that the Government were happy to accept the amendment on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee accepted a manuscript amendment to bring it into order.
In conclusion, I should say something about Amendment No. 518, to Schedule 1. That amendement is not acceptable to the Government. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows the reason. which is that it would tie the hands of the Boundary Commission when considering Assembly constituencies. That would be an unprecedented step which we do not wish to take. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept all the very good reasons for our not doing so.
I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the proposed Amendment, after first "one" insert "initial".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I realise that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is about to rise, no doubt to accept with gratitude the Minister's constructive reply. But I want to speak briefly because I think it important that English Members should occasionally be heard on matters that affect Scotland. We in England will have many of our affairs discussed by Scottish Members even when they have their own devolved Asembly, so it is important that the voice of England should not go unheard from time to time.
I am sure that the Minister is right to accept the amendment, but I cannot understand why he did not do it a couple of hours ago. However, it has been of inestimable political value to both sides of the Committee that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) was allowed her head. Perhaps her head was in a somewhat enlivened condition this evening. I am certain that she will regret a great deal of what she said.
If the Minister had accepted the amendment right at the start, the Committee could have got on with its business. It is an eminently reasonable amendment. From the schedule the Minister will appreciate that the Boundary Commission in any event is bound to take account of the problems of accessibility and the peculiar geographical and other features of Orkney and Shetland. Therefore, it is almost implicit in the geography of these islands that they should have a separate seat each rather than being lumped together and given two seats.
9.45 p.m.
The Government Chief Whip or the Lord President may soon be telling us that time has been wasted and that debate on the Bill must be guillotined. I want to put on record the fact—I say this with respect to the Minister—that the Government have allowed two or three hours to be unnecessarily used. If the Minister had accepted the amendment clean and simple in the first place, he would not have wasted the time of the House. I hope that the Government will not argue therefore that time has been improperly consumed when the responsibility for losing this time lies largely with the Government.
I slightly restrain my criticism on one point, because if we had not had this debate we should not have heard the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, who managed to give more hostages to fortune than I have heard for a long time.

Mr. MacCormick: Where does the Conservative Party's policy lie? What is the difference in the Hon. Member's party's view between the Orkney and Shetland Islands and the isles to the west of Scotland?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not answer that question either.

Mr. Griffiths: You know me well enough, Mr. Crawshaw, to know that I would never presume to do any such thing. I shall eschew such a temptation and remain in order.
I was impressed when the Minister said that it was possible in Scotland for hon. Members from one part of the country adequately to represent other areas. That is of course true. It does not follow that one must have someone from Orkney to represent Orkney. The Minister gave cogent illustraions. He said—I think that I know enough of Scotland to appreciate his point—that there is a Paisley man representing Dundee, which is quite an achievement, just as there are many Glaswegians effectively representing Highlands seats.
This is so, but it is so throughout the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) admirably represents that constituency, although he comes from New Zealand.


One of your colleagues, Mr. Crawshaw, who presides so frequently and so well over our affairs, comes from Canada. Many of my hon. friends adequately represents seats where they were not born and did not grow up.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister but I would point out that what he has said shows what is wrong with the Bill. It is based on the assumption that only Scots can run Scotland, when we should recognise that we are all part of one nation, the British nation, and that all of us, whether we are Anglo-Scots, Anglo-Welsh, Englishmen representing Scottish seats or Welshmen representing English seats, are one together in a single community. I agree with what the Minister said, but in saying it he destroyed one of the pillars of his own Bill.

Mr. Grimond: I thank the Minister. In spite of any unkind words which have been said about him, he has our deep and sincere thanks. I thank the Government as well. This is the first amendment they have accepted and I, in turn, am very pleased to accept their amendment. I hope that this sets an example for the rest of the Bill, but it is very unlikely that any such similar cases will arise.
I have been a little surprised now and then at the extraordinary wide implications of the question of whether we should have separate Members for Orkney and Shetland in the Assembly or a Member for both. I was amazed at the way this question seemed to interfere with the whole Scottish-English relationship. Also, in the debate we touched on Ceylon, world-wide oil supplies, and the terrible fears about the central belt of Scotland. When I come to discuss the preservation of the St. Kilda wren, who knows what really world-shaking problems that will throw up? No doubt it will fill in another two interesting hours of debate. I am well content with the Government's amendment tonight.

Mr. Aitken: I, too, thank the Minister, who so gracefully accepted the amendment of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The only thing that I have in common with him politically is that I represent an island, or part of an island, in the House of Commons. My island is one on which

the two constituent parts are separately represented. The reason for this representation is, of course, population. This is the one ground on which the amendment tonight could not be justified.
One important reason for the amendment was not touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman in explaining why the two parts of Orkney and Shetland should be separately represented. This is the fact that they have different futures in relation to North Sea oil development.
We have had some quite fascinating revelations about Scottish oil this evening and I was astounded by the answer to my intervention by the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). Her frankness and truthfulness tonight contrasts with the deception and mendacity of the wall posters of the Scottish National Party. I am quite sure that we shall hear more of this debate after tonight.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: As I have been referred to more than once, may I point out that the poster about "Scotland's Oil" remains true. Our policy is to allow these distinctive islands to have exactly what they want. But it is also our observation from frequent visits there—not on my part but by other Members of my party—that the claims tonight are a myth, and Orkney and Shetland want to be part of Scotland.

Mr. Aitken: If the hon. Lady insists in bowling me long hops, she cannot be surprised if I occasionally dispatch them to the boundary. The deception and mendacity of the poster was not in the small print, but in the continuous line which the Scottish National Party perpetuates—that Scotland is economically viable and strong as a separate nation. That is the theory behind the cry "Scotland's Oil". Yet tonight the hon. Lady admitted that only one-third of the oil would be in the possession of an independent Scotland. I was very grateful for that revelation.

Mr. Robert Hughes: What would be the position if the North-East Coast of Scotland, comprising Aberdeen and the Grampian Region, decided that it wanted independence from Scotland and also the oil off the North-East Coast?

Mr. Aitken: Unaccustomed as I am to be called upon as spokesman of the


SNP—although I could hardly do worse than its spokesmen have done this evening—I can hardly refrain from granting the hon. Gentleman full oil rights, because that seems to be in line with policy laid down by SNP spokesmen.
I thought that the Minister was in an optimistic mood in introducing his manuscript amendment and hoping that it would not set a precedent. I must warn him that I see certain trouble arising from this situation, because Orkney and Shetland are likely to have a rather different economic future because one island is likely to be very rich because of North Sea oil under Shetland and the other is likely to be not so rich.

Mr. Grimond: Shetland may be very rich, but Orkney will also be rich to the extent of many millions of pounds per year.

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. However, I remind him that experience

in the Middle East shows that many of the emirates declare themselves to be united but still indulge in disputes over a few hundred barrels of oil. I would refer the Committee to the current dispute between Dubai and Sharjah over a border line. It is affecting oil production in that area.
Therefore, there appear to be genuine dangers in having separate Members for two groups of islands which in many respects are similar. I fear that questions of greed in economic terms may come into the picture similar to the situation in the Middle East and that there are dangers in that respect.
The other arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland were so compelling that I am pleased to support his amendment.

Amendment to the proposed amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 2, line 4, at end insert
(4) An Order in Council under Part 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act specifying constituencies under subsection (3) above shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
I doubt whether I shall make this amendment as interesting or as exciting as was the last amendment, but I shall endeavour to explain it as clearly as I can.
The amendment relates to Clause 2, in relation to which subsection (3) provides that
other Members of each Assembly shall be returned for the Assembly constituencies for the time being specified in an Order in an Order in Council under Schedule 1".
It envisages that there shall be one Member for each such constituency.
The point with which I am concerned relates to the phrase
Order in Council under Schedule 1 to this Act".
The amendment is intended to ensure that such an Order in Council under Part I of Schedule 1 specifying constituencies shall not be made unless a draft has been laid and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
I hope that this will prove to be a probing amendment, because there may already be provision for this situation by way of cross reference. We should make sure that this Parliament at Westminster will have the right to lay an order creating the new constituencies in the new Assemblies and to approve or disapprove of such an order. The new Assembly constituencies will come into being by recommendation of the Boundary Commission—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Scotland and Wales Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Page: The new Assembly constituencies resulted from a recommendation by the Boundary Commission in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Bill. Schedule 1 appears on page 69 of the Bill, but when one looks to see whether Schedule 1, Part 1—which is the part that is relevant—specifically mentions the making of any order, one is left in some doubt.
Under paragraph 2, Schedule 1, Part I, we are referred to Sections 2(4) and 2(5) and 3 of the House of Commons Redistribution of Seats at 1949. The sections to which we are referred are described in parentheses as dealing with notices of the proposed Boundary Commission report and implementation of the recommendations of that report. There is no mention there of the making of a draft order and therefore one is left in doubt as to what part of the Bill deals with the making of that draft order.
Having been referred in Schedule 1 to these sections of the 1949 Act, one has to turn to that Act to find out what it does and whether we shall really have a chance to debate a draft order in the House. Section 2(4) of the Act deals with the notices by the Boundary Commission that they intend to make a report. Subsection (5), to which we are referred, says:
As soon as may he after a Boundary Commission have submitted a report to the Secretary of State under this Act he shall lay the report before Parliament together … with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report.
That is as far as we have got. The Secretary of State puts the report before Parliament with a draft of the order. We can then turn to Section 3 of the 1949 Act which deals with reports of the Boundary Commission concerning constituencies of Members of Parliament. It is a 1949 Act and, as such, says that the Boundary Commission shall recommend whether the new constituency shall be a county constituency or a borough constituency. That sounds a little inappropriate. It


deals with the sort of thing which an order may contain and says:
If any such draft is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall submit it to His Majesty in Council.
There is no provision that an order cannot be made unless a draft has been laid. The section is peculiarly phrased, and the proviso in subsection (6) says:
Provided that the coming into force of any such Order shall not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by His Majesty summoning a new Parliament, or affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.
What does this have to do with an order that creates new constituencies in Scotland and Wales for the new Assemblies? Does it really mean that such an order does not come into effect until the dissolution of the Westminster Parliament and the summoning of a new Parliament?
Clause 2(3) of the Bill refers us to Schedule 1 of the Bill which, in turn, says that we must apply Section 2 of the 1949 Act. That section says that these orders cannot take effect until the dissolution of this Parliament. That seems nonsensical. There are anomalies in the way in which the Bill is drafted with reference to those orders. Does an order under Schedule 1 of the Bill have to comply entirely with the provisions of the 1949 Act—which is not an appropriate measure for this type of Boundary Commission recommendation and the orders that should follow from it? It deals with constituencies of the Westminster Parliament. I should have preferred to see a clause dealing with procedures after the laying of an order following a recommendation from the Boundary Commission relating to the new Assemblies.
I do not believe that I am being over-suspicious in examing the matter in this way, because we have had some difficulty in the application of the 1949 Act in the past. I remember a Labour Government who failed to make an order under the 1949 Act following a recommendation of the Boundary Commission. When they were told that they were obliged to make the order, they laid a draft before the House and put on the Whips to defeat it. Consequently, I am a little suspicious of using the 1949 Act in order to create constituencies for the new Assemblies. I would rather see a new procedure spelled out. It has not been spelled out fully

in the amendment, but I tabled it more to probe the position than to have it accepted word for word. It would need further procedures added.

Mr. Dalyell: Ever since I was appointed PPS to Mr. Dick Crossman I have listened to many hours of argument by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I have had a sneaking admiration for his capacity—unrivalled in this House—to ferret out orders, schedules and the like which are at fault and to be proved right at the end of the day. His track record in this sort of matter is good. I do not pretend to be able to cast a judgment on the issue that we are debating, but I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State a direct question. Who will be in charge of the Boundary Commission? Will it be the Assembly or will it be, ultimately, this House? This, it seems to me, is one of the matters which arise out of what we are discussing.
I have a high regard for the Minister of State's capacity as a lawyer, but I must return to the point that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and I have raised. An increasing number of matters coming before us are the business of a Law Officer. No less than the Solicitor-General repeatedly had to come to the Dispatch Box during the passage of the European Communities Act. I do not know what legal advice is readily available to the Minister of State, but either one of the English Law Officers or the Lord Advocate, with the help of their Departments, should be available on such occasions to give an authoritative opinion.
As I have understood it, the Law Officer's opinion is often somewhat different from the opinion of Ministers, even if the Minister concerned is an able lawyer.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), alongside whom I have served on numerous Bills, has clearly shown that to apply the precise language of the 1949 Act in this matter is at best clumsy and at worst could be wholly inappropriate. This is a matter of some importance, because whatever our views of the Bill it is important that if it becomes an Act


it should work well and should be right from the start in its technicalities.
The 1949 Act is to apply, but I understand that there is to be a supplementary report by the Boundary Commission to deal with the Scottish Assembly constituencies and that that supplementary report will be attached to its recommendations on parliamentary seats. If the procedures outlined by my right hon. Friend are to be applied it will be, to put it mildly, a prolonged and complex procedure. It is important that we have a precise legal opinion on this matter to make certain that the procedure will work properly.
There are two other reasons why I am anxious to be assured that an order will be laid before the House under the affirmative procedure.
Those reasons are, first, that when the Boundary Commission is determining constituency limits or parameters it has to have regard to a number of criteria. I refer to two of them. It has to consider the local government areas, which is conventional. That is what all Boundary Commissions seek to do. But in the case of both Scotland and Wales there is a very strong implication, if not a statement, that one of the tasks of the new Assemblies—certainly in Wales—will be to review the local government areas.
I do not know whether I am being unfair to the Secretary of State for Wales, but I have a firm impression that he and others are not satisfied with the local government boundaries in Wales. I believe that he, in common with many Members of the new Welsh Assembly, would regard it as proper that they should reorganise those boundaries at an early stage. That has been strongly implied in many things that have been said.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I have said not that the Assembly should revise the boundaries but that it should reconsider the whole structure of local government and make proposals.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has confirmed in broader terms what I said. No one knows better than my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and I that we cannot consider the structure of local government

without looking at boundaries and powers. Hon. Members will recall that when we were dealing with local government reorganisation it was impossible to move in the Chamber or in the Tea Room without hearing the opinions of hon. Members about the precise definition of their local government areas because of the inevitable spillover effect on parliamentary boundaries. The Secretary of State's comments have helped me to make my point, which is that it will rapidly become the business of the Welsh Assembly for certain, and the Scottish Assembly in all likelihood, to start examining the structure and, therefore, the powers and boundaries of local government units. It follows, as the schedule sets out, that the new Boundary Commissions must have regard to the boundaries of local government areas. I understand that this is stated in paragraph 8 of the schedule.
Many hon. Members will want to pay very close attention to changes in local government boundaries because, in the long term, their own constituencies will be affected. We are all interested in that and we shall all want to discuss it. I support the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that it is imperative that Orders in Council made to give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions for Scotland and Wales ought to be dealt with in this House and ought to be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that there can be proper debate.
Secondly, Part II of the schedule requires that the Boundary Commissions, in making their supplementary reports in respect of the Scottish and Welsh Assembly areas, will have to work out this complicated mathematical equation that where the electorate in an area is more than 125 per cent. of the average—or the electoral quota—that area will get three Assembly Members, but if it has less than 125 per cent. of the average, the area will get only two. This is a complicated matter, but the Minister has already taken us through the complexities, so there is no need for me to elaborate.
This system can throw up some extraordinary anomalies. At the margins, we may find that an area which has 125 per cent. of the average electorate will have three Assemblymen but that an area


next door, which perhaps has only 120 per cent. of the average, has two Assemblymen. Many people will regard this as unfair. I think it is common ground that our constituency boundaries are already unfair, in the sense that many of them include far more people than do others. My own constituency has probably four times as many electors as the constituencies of many Labour Members who represent cities such as Glasgow, London, Liverpool or Birmingham. Many constituencies in rural or over-spill areas, at least in England, contain many more electors. This is an anomaly that ought to be put right.
The point I wish to emphasise is that here we have a clean slate. We are starting from scratch. We ought not to start by building in unfairnesses in this way. If we have the opportunity to make a fresh start, we ought to eliminate these unfairnesses. We ought to start off with constituencies of approximately the same size, but the proposed formula will not achieve that. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby suggested, it is of the greatest importance that Orders in Council should be brought before the House and should be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that we may have full discussion on this matter.
I give notice now that if the Government bring before the House Orders in Council that set up Assembly constituencies in Scotland and Wales that create wild unfairnesses between one area and another, they must expect passionate debate in the House, partly because of the effect on the constituencies of hon. Members and partly because of the inherent injustices, and it may well be that from time to time those Orders in Council will not be approved.
My final point arises from our experience in this matter. The Prime Minister was in charge of the Home Department in 1968—I think it was—when the Boundary Commission's proposals were made, and it became his duty to lay them before the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman hovered for quite a long time before doing that. When he was finally prevailed upon to do his duty and lay those proposals before the House—I do not want to use emotive language—he was persuaded, by what he no doubt considered to be the best interests of the Labour Party, not to implement the

Boundary Commission's recommendations.
I shall never forget the scenes in the House when Labour Members were whipped through the Lobbies against the very order that their own Secretary of State was required to make, and it was at his request that they did that. It was not a creditable part of the Labour Party's political history. I do not want to push too hard on this point, because I do not wish to exicite hon. Gentlemen. However, I hope that the Minister will recognise that, against that background, there is a great deal of sensitivity on this issue and that once bitten is twice shy.

Mr. Brittan: Does my hon. Friend agree that at that time there was a great deal of concern that the Government were not going to lay the order at all? It was only when there were widespread suggestions that if they failed to do so there would be action in the courts for a writ of mandamus that they took any action at all.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right. I remember that affair with the greatest clarity. I was anxious not to upset the Committee more than necessary by going into it as hard as I might have done. I need say no more on that point.
There is great sensitivity because in the past the recommendations of the Boundary Commission were not proceeded with until there was a threat of legal action. We then had that discreditable experience of Labour Members being whipped through the Lobbies to reject the very order that their own Secretary of State had laid before the House. That was for party political reasons. I have said enough on that point.
If the Minister is satisfied that the procedure within the schedule and within Clause 2 will enable the House to look at any supplementary reports to the Boundary Commission's recommendations which affect Assembly seats, there will be no need to press the amendment. But I believe that he needs to be satisfied that it is legally correct and that when the Boundary Commission arrives at conclusions that touch on local government and on the whole complex question of local ties, it will report in such a fashion that the House will be able to debate any recommendations that it makes. This


is a matter of the greatest importance. I hope that the Minister accepts the sincerity with which I have put it forward.

Mr. Tebbit: I think that we—I include the Minister and the Government—owe a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for raising this matter. After all, the Government have not been the luckiest of litigants lately. Unclear legislation often leads to litigation. Indeed, the Government have not been particularly successful legislators in the technical sense. For example, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Child Benefit Act and other matters which are sub judice have given rise to considerable confusion and a degree of embarrassment to the Government because the law has been less distinct than it might have been.
I suppose that is a kind way of saying that it has been possible on numerous occasions recently for citizens to dispute the meaning of legislation which has been enacted by the House of Commons. That seems to me to suggest that we should all agree that there is a need for greater clarity in the law.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby took us through the Acts—the 1949 Act in particular, and the parts of it that are listed in Schedule 1 as having relevant to Clause 2. He made it perfectly plain that it might require a lawyer's brain to be really sure at present just exactly what it is that the Bill is intended to say. In these matters we should not run the risk of making our legislation so complicated that it needs a lawyer to tell us what it means, because, as we all know, if one hires one lawyer to say what an Act means, it is generally possible to hire another lawyer who will say that it means something else.
Once that is done, there is no shortage of people—some might call them busybodies, some might call them patriots—who would leap to the courts, particularly if they did not like this measure, if it becomes an Act, seeing a chance of a fault in the Act, or confusion, or that someone had misapplied a very complicated piece of legislation. I can

imagine someone or other—perhaps a Scottish Association for Freedom or a Welsh Association for Freedom—coming forward—

Mr. John Morris: We do not have one.

Mr. Tebbit: I deliberately did not use the name of an association that exists at present; I invented one, because I am sure that such an association would very rapidly be invented just for this sort of occasion. It would no doubt find that there were people who were opposed to the whole idea of devolution and who would be able to raise money, hire lawyers, go into court and take us, in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby did, through the 1949 Act—but, being professional lawyers, they would take us through it at much greater length. We have seen recently just how long a very distinguished lawyer can be in discussing what appeared to be at first a fairly straightforward matter of law that he thought that everyone understood. We could go on in that sort of way.
Therefore, I hope that when the Minister of State replies he will allow for the fact that a number of us are not lawyers and yet we shall be taking collective responsibility for this Bill if it ever becomes an Act. If we do not understand it, how shall we be able, with straight faces, to tell people what it means? I hope that the Minister will be able to explain it in words that I understand.

Mr. John Smith: Very difficult.

Mr. Tebbit: I give the Minister this warning. If he cannot take me through the 1949 Act in a way that leads me to understand it, I may have to return to this point at much greater length, perhaps seeking the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, if he should catch the eye of the Chair again, until we are all absolutely clear exactly how the Act applies to the Bill.

Mr. John Smith: There was one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about which I must sound a small note of dissent. I refer to his very unelevated view of lawyers. I do not think it fair to say that one can hire a lawyer to say one thing and hire another lawyer to say another thing.

Mr. Tebbit: Of course one can do that.

Mr. Smith: I have sufficient pride in my profession to think that that must be a very unlikely outcome. However, I leave the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) to deal with those in his own party who need some instruction about the ethics of the legal profession.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry, but here we go again, already. It is my understanding that when a man is brought to court or is accused of an offence, it is very rare not to find a lawyer on each side. Therefore, it is obvious, to me at any rate, that one can usually find a lawyer to say one thing and a lawyer to say another. That is what they are there for.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Chingford displays too visibly not only his lack of knowledge in these matters but some of his political technique. He asks me to take him through the Act. He says that, whomever else I might have to persuade, I shall specifically have to persuade him. That might be a challenge that I find too great, but I shall do my best to explain the matter.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) raised an important point and I shall try to meet his argument directly. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) raised a number of matters about the way in which the Boundary Commission will operate. He expressed his fears, and we shall take account of them. We must all learn from the experience of whatever Administration are in power and whatever Act of Parliament an Administration is implementing.
It is right to say that there are difficulties when a percentage factor is involved. One might be slightly over in one instance and slightly under in another. It must be the experience of all of us that it is terribly hard to do perfect justice in respect of constituency boundaries and local government boundaries. We have tried to be fair.
With respect to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I think that he was speaking, in a sense, to a different amendment. He was putting forward a solution

to a different problem. The main burden of the debate was put before the Committee by the right hon. Member for Crosby, who is the living embodiment of Parliament keeping a careful watch on the Executive and studying all its moves and proposals.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill seeks by shorthand, as it were, to import the provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 to apply in the circumstances of the Bill. He carefully set out the provisions. Schedule 1(2) to the Bill states that Section 3 of the 1949 Act shall apply in relation to the reports of the Scottish and Welsh Boundary Commissions specifying Assembly constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman questioned whether the proviso to Section 3(6) applied and asked what its effect would be if it were applicable. It is my understanding that the proviso to Section 3(6) applies solely to parliamentary elections and would have no application in this instance. I am willing to check the matter carefully with parliamentary counsel, but that is my understanding.
I believe that the Bill meets the essential requirement that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked about—namely, that the recommendations should be laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of the House before being put into effect. My understanding is that the Bill covers that situation.
I have tried to answer the precise point that the right hon. Member for Crosby raised but I undertake to check it carefully to ensure that my understanding is correct. If it is in any way incorrect and if the provision in the Bill does not meet the reasonable requirement that Members have asked for—namely, that resolutions should be brought before the House and approved by the House—I shall take remedial action as soon as I can.

Mr. Dalyell: I have the greatest respect for the professional competence of my hon. Friend, which is considerable, but I repeat what I have said previously about the presence of the Law Officers. There is a difference between a ministerial answer and a Law Officer's verdict.

Mr. Smith: I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend at this time of night in view of the friendly comments he has


been making throughout the day. I must not damage the slightly unusual mutual appreciation that exists between my hon. Friend and me. However, I think he would admit to pursuing a campaign throughout our consideration of the Bill that we should have a Law Officer present. We have heard about the presence of a Law Officer today and we have heard it on every day of our consideration of the Bill in Committee. I confidently predict that we shall hear the demand for the presence of a Law Officer throughout the Committee proceedings.
I understand that my hon. Friend is in correspondence with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate on another matter that he has raised. He should not be too much in awe of and show too much deference to lawyers and Law Officers. Intelligent people such as my hon. Friend are capable of coming to an understanding of what an Act of Parliament means. If we take his argument too far, no one other than a Law Officer will be able to say anything meaningful about the Bill. I refuse to accept, even though I was a lawyer, that view of Members of Parliament. Hon. Members are very intelligent and they can understand matters without the help of Law Officers.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I thank the Minister for his very reasonable reply. I am grateful to him on two counts: first, for saying that he will consider this matter and assure himself that all is well, and, secondly, for making on behalf of many of us a mini-declaration of independence from lawyers in forming judgments.
When the Minister considers this matter again, will he take in one point of substance? I recognise that it is convenient to parliamentary draftsmen to be able to refer to precedent, in this case the 1949 Act. Much of our legislation is done by reference. However, it is not always wise to put old wine in new bottles. Sometimes when we start from scratch it is appropriate to make new rules to fit new circumstances. I am not sure that the parliamentary draftsmen have been wise to rely wholly on the 1949 Act and apply it mutatis mutandis to this situation.
We are confronted with a clean slate. We can write on it more or less what we

want. Surely it would be more sensible to start with a much more equitable basis in the Assemblies, with a relationship of population to representation, than we have in this Parliament. It is well known that much of the debate about proportional representation and changing the constitution reflects in part the feeling that our present constituencies do not accurately reflect the contemporary distribution of population. There are many anomalies and inequities, and some injustices.
It is proposed basically to import that unfair system into the new one we are creating. I should have thought that, to say the least, we are losing an opportunity. We can write on this clean slate what we wish to write. In fact, what we are writing on it by virtue of this clause and the schedule is the old pattern, which is demonstrably unfair.
When the Minister, who has been very civilised and reasonable, considers the legal point, will he, for the benefit of the Committee and of the Assemblies, see whether he can find a way of getting the constituencies of the Assemblies started on a fairer basis than we shall have if we import the old system into the new one?

Mr. Tebbit: The Minister will not be surprised when I say that he has not convinced me. It is not merely a question of his not having a Law Officer here; he does not seem to have a copy of the 1949 Act here. It might be useful to have it.

Mr. John Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman a copy here?

Mr. Tebbit: We are discussing the Minister's legislation. It is not my job to explain it. If an hon. Member asks a question or two, it is incumbent on the Minister to ensure that he has the relevant documents with which to answer them.
The Minister has said that he will look carefully at the 1949 Act—[Interruption.] I do not want unduly to disturb a private conversation, but it would be better if the Minister listened to what I was saying. He says that he will read—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the Minister is cleverer than I think he is and can talk and listen to a colleague and listen to the debate.
I come back to the point. I understood the Minister to say that he would examine Section 3 of the 1949 Act and come to a conclusion about how it applied. [Interruption.] It is tedious if we have to suffer closure motions when debates have much more run in them and also constant interruptions from the Government's Deputy Chief Whip.
I understood the Minister to say that he would tell us on another occasion whether he was satisfied that the Act meant what he thought it meant. When he has done that and is clear in his mind about how it affects Schedule 1, I suggest that he should write out his conclusions on a sheet of notepaper, hand it to the parliamentary draftsmen and ask them to incorporate it in Schedule 1, so that in future we shall be able to see written down what the Boundary Commission has to do and how the procedure works, without having to go back to other Acts which we agree apply only partially.
It will be a long time before we get to the schedules. I hope that the Minister will take the hint, get this straightened out and re-legislate. I do not accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, that people feel that the procedures operated for parliamentary constituencies are unfair—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend is not right. I was not suggesting that the procedures of the Boundary Commission were unfair. On the contrary, I referred to the Boundary Commission as one of the organs of the country whose integrity and competence are not in dispute. The unfairness I alluded to was that there are many constituencies with 60,000, 70,000, 80,000 or 90,000 electors and others with 25,000, 35,000 or 40,000 electors. The opportunity exists in the setting up of the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies to bring equity and fairness into the numbers.

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps my hon. Friend and I might discuss that outside the Chamber. The Minister is getting impatient. The Boundary Commission at the beginning set out to achieve that equity.
I hope that the Minister will explain on half of a sheet of notepaper exactly how the procedures will operate, so that when we consider Schedule 1 we might be

able to avoid going through the arguments again because we still do not understand what the Minister wants to do in this legislation.

Mr. Graham Page: I thank the Minister for his assurance that he will look again at this matter. Normally I would ask him to be good enough to let those of us who have taken part in the debate know if he is unable to do anything about it in good time before Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said that it will be some time before we get to Schedule 1 where the amendments can be made. I therefore ask the Minister, if he can do something about it, to table amendments to Schedule 1. If he finds that he cannot, will he let those of us who have taken part in the debate know in good time before we reach Schedule 1?

Mr. Francis Pym: Immediately after Clause 2, which we are now considering, we shall come to Schedule 1, so the length of time available is not so great.

Mr. Page: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting me right. I did not look properly at the resolution which sets out the procedure. If the Minister cannot do anything, we shall be grateful if he will let us know before Report so that we may put down a further amendment. But I repeat my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 2, leave out line 5.
The words to be left out are simply the provision that the Welsh Assembly shall be a body corporate. This is a probing amendment. Therefore, I cannot tell the Committee whether I am doing a favour or a disservice to Wales in proposing it. It is an inquiry which is of a technical legal kind but raises substantial issues concerning the contrast between the executive operation of the Scottish Assembly and of the Welsh Assembly. or the Scottish Assembly there are to be expressly an Executive, a Chief Executive and other Members. The Welsh Assembly has a committee structure and is of a different kind. We are trying to see


whether the fact that the Welsh Assembly is described as a body corporate whereas the Scottish Assembly is not relates to this distinction or to other matters as well or instead.
The matter can be of some importance. The problem whether public bodies should be created as bodies corporate arises in much legislation. I have an interest of some standing in the matter, because when the House was considering in Committee the Employment Protection Bill one question to be decided was whether the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service should be a body corporate. I shall not weary the Committee with the details of that discussion, which necessitated investigation of a whole range of other public bodies set up under different Acts and seeing which of them were bodies corporate.
In that somewhat tedious exercise we found that there was no clear, rational distinction between the bodies described to be bodies corporate and those not so described. As a result of that investigation, the parliamentary draftsmen went into the matter and the Minister concerned gave assurances during our later consideration of the Bill that a consistent practice would be followed in future legislation setting up public bodies.
It may not be a world-shaking matter, but it is of some benefit generally if there is consistency. Is the assurance given during the Committee stage of the Employment Protection Bill, together with the principles which presumably were subsequently enunciated by the parliamentary draftsmen, reflected in the decision to make the Welsh Assembly a body corporate while the Scottish Assembly is not? The matter is important for the law, though I do not think it would be right to say that the right to sue or be sued is in itself dependent on the body being a body corporate.
The answer may be that the Scottish Assembly, which is not a body corporate, can be sued in a different manner and that the individual members of the Scottish Executive may be sued rather than any public body as a whole. But the Committee would benefit from an explanation of the position of the Welsh Assembly and whether the position is the same in the bringing of actions.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, for example, in the areas where this House devolved real power to the Welsh Assembly it could be sued for what it did in those areas? That is an extraordinary constitutional proposition.

Mr. Britton: I think that the answer to that is "No". Normally one could not sue the Welsh Assembly because one did not like what it had done or because it had behaved unlawfully. One assumes that in that sense it would have sovereign immunity. On the other hand, if the Assembly happened to have for its domestic use a van which knocked someone over, that person would have to be able to sue someone. The question is, whom would he sue? I think that in the case of the Welsh Assembly he would sue the Assembly itself. But I do not know whom one would sue if one had a similar accident in Edinburgh. I know from my friends in Edinburgh that whomever one sued the damages one would get would probably be substantially less than in Cardiff.

Mr. John Smith: That is why we need devolution.

Mr. Brittan: For once, a sedentary interruption from the Minister is helpful.
There will not be much time for Scottish legislation in the House as things stand, but I am sure that if the Minister sought to introduce legislation to alter the quantum of damages in personal injury actions in Scotland there are few on this side—I hope I am not speaking out of turn—who would obstruct it. However, one would obviously want to look at the details before making any firm commitment.
There is a serious point about the nature of the Assembly and its rights to sue and be sued. The same point relates to the ownership of property. Of course, are not so legally naive or illiterate as to think that only bodies corporate have such rights, but again the question of in whom property is vested is important. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have little difficulty in dealing with the point, but we shall certainly want a clear answer if we are not to join in the chorus led by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who calls for expert legal advice beyond the bounds of the present


occupants of the Government Front Bench.
If the Welsh Assembly is a body corporate, property can be vested in it direct, whereas the Scottish Assembly will have no such right and its position is less clear. I do not know whether the members of the Executive would hold the property, but if it was the property of the Assembly as such it would be a strange constitutional doctrine for the members of an Executive to hold property, as it were, on trust for a legislature. I do not know the answer to that, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to deal with that as well.

Mr. Graham Page: I am not so sure.

Mr. Brittan: I am sorry to hear that. I hope that for once the smallest of wedges may be driven between my right hon. Friend and myself when the Secretary of State shows that my optimism is better founded than my right hon. Friend's pessimism.

Mr. Graham Page: It is based on long experience.

Mr. Brittan: I am happy to rely on my short experience in these matters and to be optimistic about the outcome.
There are more serious points, from the constitutional point of view, about proceedings of the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. There are implications in the fact that the Welsh Assembly is to be a body corporate and the Scottish Assembly is not. If one looks at Clause 21, one finds these words:
(1) There shall be a Scottish Executive consisting of the Chief Executive and other members.
(2) The members of the Scottish Executive shall exercise on behalf of Her Majesty such of her prerogative and other executive powers exercisable in or as regards Scotland as relate to devolved matters.
There is a clear creation of a Scottish Executive without any description of its legal status.
When one turns to Wales, one finds a more complex situation:
The Welsh Assembly shall exercise on behalf of Her Majesty such of her prerogative and other executive powers exercisable in or as regards Wales as relate to devolved matters.
In Clause 36 one finds this provision:
The Welsh Assembly may appoint such officers and servants as the Assembly may think

appropriate for the exercise by the Assembly, any committee of the Assembly or any subcommittee or leader of such a committee of the powers exercisable by them respectively.
It appears that the Scottish Assembly is to be an Executive, and no one minds saying so. However, the Welsh Assembly is an Executive but somehow it is made to look as if it is not quite that. It is not so clear-cut in the same way.
I realise that there is meant to be a distinction between the operation of the committee system in Wales and the individual ministerial system in Scotland. I understand that. In relation to the question of whether the two Assemblies are a body corporate, however, the two positions require a little more explanation. For example, what happens at a time when the Assembly is not sitting?
Presumably the Scottish Executive continues to exist during recesses, and, indeed, even when there is an interregnum between two Assemblies—such as during an election period. As far as Wales is concerned, I do not know whether Clause 36 is sufficient to enable all the Executive's powers to be exercised during the course of a recess. This is something on which the Secretary of State plainly must give us guidance. It is obviously a matter of importance. The practical business of government must go on. That business includes making orders during an interregnum.
One expects that in the ordinary course of events the Scottish Executive will be like the United Kingdom Government: it will continue to exist during an election period. But what is the position with the Welsh Assembly? One cannot have an Assembly which continues to exist in an election period. That is a contradiction in terms. Yet the Welsh Assembly, claiming to be a body corporate—whether proudly or not we shall see—ceases to exist in an election period, but at the same time it has substantial executive powers to be exercised by the Assembly itself.
11.0 p.m.
No number of committee systems will avoid the problem of what happens when the Welsh Assembly has been dissolved for the purpose of an election. I wondered whether the inclusion of subsection (4), making the Welsh Assembly a body corporate, provided some kind of clue to the answer to the problem. We shall


want an answer to the question: what happens on the exercise of executive powers in Wales during the interregnum between elections?
One possibility that springs to mind as a source of filling what would otherwise be an uncomfortable vacuum is that the Secretary of State might leap into the breach. The right hon. and learned Gentleman chortles, from which I take it that he has a certain reluctance to take on such a rôle, and it would be inconsistent with the whole concept of devolution in Wales. If that is intended, there would have to be specific statutory provisions—provisions for which I have searched but have not found in the Bill.
I hope I have satisfied the Committee that in scrutinising the apparently innocent-sounding provision that the Welsh Assembly shall be a body corporate one finds a whole Pandora's box of problems. There is little doubt that the reason why one is unable to work out answers oneself is that one perhaps has not the time or ability to do so. However, the Secretary of State, with his battery of advisers, will be able at the drop of a hat to provide answers to these conundrums relating to ownership of property, suing, the position of the Scottish Assembly in relation to the Welsh Assembly, the comparative powers of the Assemblies, the situation during recesses and the position in the periods between elections. I look forward to hearing answers to these questions. However, I am not saying that in the absence of such answers I shall advise my colleagues to exclude this provision. We are in the hands of the Secretary of State. I resume my seat confident that my optimism will be confirmed and that—for once—I shall triumph over the pessimism of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. John Morris: I was glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this was a probing amendment. In the course of that probing the hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions. If he were seeking to delete this provision I would have been worried by his approach, but since that was not his purpose I shall seek to give him what assistance I can. Despite the seductive tones of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I do not promise to give him a dissertation on Scots law but I will seek to confine myself to the problems

arising from the establishment of the Welsh Assembly and from the need to retain this provision.
This provision arises because the duties and obligations in Wales are to be carried out collectively. That is the whole basis of our approach. All the hon. Gentleman's questions and conundrums fall into line once that approach is established. The need for the provision arises because the Welsh Assembly will exercise an executive role. If it is to exercise an executive role—and this relates to the questions about suing, ownership and all the rest—it must have a legal personality, and hence there is a need for this provision to continue in being and to enable the entity to be capable of entering into contracts and also to bind successors. I am advised that the parallel to this situation where executive authority is exercised collectively is in Section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1972.
I shall refrain from entering into the political arguments and justifications, because the hon. Gentleman said I need not do so. We shall return to that area later.
I was asked what would happen if the Welsh Assembly was not sitting or during an interregnum. The answer is simple. The whole of the responsibilities for executive decision-making will be vested, as I said earlier, in the Assembly as a whole. That is differentiated from the position of Ministers and from what will happen in Scotland, where responsibility will be attached to a Minister or whatever such a person may be called. He will succeed to the responsibilities transferred to him from an appropriate Secretary of State and, similarly, such Ministers will succeed to the responsibilities in turn as one leaves office and is followed by another. That situation will not arise in Wales, however, because the responsibilities will pass from Secretaries of State to the whole Assembly. Whether or not the Assembly is sitting will not matter, because the responsibilities will be vested in the Assembly as a whole during its period in office.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can the Minister tell us whether the Clerk of the Welsh Assembly or his officers will enjoy Crown immunity? Will they be Crown servants? Clause 39 states that the Welsh Assembly may institute civil proceedings in its name. If it were a body corporate I could


understand that, but will the Minister confirm that, if that is so, the Assembly could also be sued? Is it not unusual that the Assembly could be sued with reference to areas of power devolved from the House?

Mr. Morris: I am trying to explain that. The Assembly will be clothed with the personality of a corporation as a result of the Bill and it will be able to operate as such. The parallel I drew earlier was with bodies set up under the Local Government Act 1972 that are able to do precisely what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was asking.
As to the Clerk and his position, I would want notice to be able to answer on that aspect. That point, however, does not arise from this amendment.

Mr. Tebbit: One odd point occurs to me. What would happen if the Welsh Assembly, as a corporate body, attempted to usurp powers that it will not have—that is to say, if it tried to act in a treasonable manner? Hon. Members may laugh, but there is a possibility of this. There is an example of an Assembly which was set up by the House in a country abroad acting in a treasonable manner. No doubt some people would consider it to be the ultimate act of nationalism if the Scottish Assembly did the same. Would the Assembly be acting as a body corporate or as individuals if that happened? Can a body corporate act in a treasonable way?

Mr. Morris: We are now in the field of jurisprudence. I would not like to define whether, under the law of treason, a body corporate can commit high treason. The question that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) should have asked is whether this body will be subject to the law in the same way as other corporate bodies. The answer is "Yes".

Mr. Brittan: Though the question of treason may be fanciful, a real problem remains. If a Minister acts illegally, he can be sued quite simply, whether because his van has run over someone, he has committed an ordinary tort for which he is vicariously liable or because an administrative action is ultra vires, as in the Tameside and Laker cases. But if we make an Assembly a corporate body, a constitutional oddity arises. If an

Assembly committed a tort or exercised powers improperly, it would be odd to have a deliberative, elected Assembly on the receiving end of legal proceedings.

Mr. Morris: The Assembly mill be a body subject to the law in the same way as any other corporate body. Local authorities are in a similar position.

Mr. Ian Grist: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I cannot understand what he is saying. Will the Assembly exist in its own right or in its elected Members? What other elected body is a body corporate?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening to me. I quoted the parallel of bodies set up under the Local Government Act 1972.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the Clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 48 (Debate on Clause or Schedule standing part), That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 509, in page 70, line 4, leave out 'wholly comprised in'.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 510, in page 70, line 6, leave out paragraph 7.
No. 511, in page 70, line 12, leave out paragraph 9.
No. 512, in page 70, line 19, leave out
'comprised in the same parliamentary constituency'.

Sir J. Gilmour: The effect of the amendments would be to provide that the Assembly constituencies should be the same as the parliamentary constituencies. The rug has rather been pulled from under me as the Committee has decided to increase the membership of the Assembly by having one Member each for Orkney and Shetland. That means a membership of at least 72 instead of the original proposal of 71. I am sure the Committee agrees that we must be careful in regulating the size of the Assembly in Scotland to ensure that if we are to give extra representation to places such as Orkney and Shetland we should also take account of the needs of other parts of the country.
11.15 p.m.
I live in the central industrial part of Scotland, in a belt that starts in Dundee, goes through my constituency, through to Edinburgh, then on to the new town of Livingston, on to the industrial complex at Grangemouth and Falkirk, then on to Cumbernauld, from there to the industrial part of Lanarkshire, then to Glasgow, Dunbartonshire and Renfrew, and then down to Ayrshire.
The bulk of the population lives in that area. Naturally, therefore, the bulk of the Members of the Assembly are bound to come from it. But if we have already concede that it is right to have one Member for Orkney and one for Shetland, I can envisage my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) calling for one Member for Ross-shire and one for Cromarty.
Where does one go from there? In the initial stage we should try to keep the Assembly to the smallest possible number of Members, because we could always add to the number if necessary. I am certain that it would be impossible to reduce the number once we passed an Act setting up the Assembly with a grand number.
I suppose that the amendment must to a certain extent be out of order because the Committee has already agreed to go beyond 71 Members. However, I seriously ask the Committee to consider how we can arrive at the right sort of mix so as to make certain that the people who live on the outskirts of the industrial belt, in Galloway or Dumfries, or who

live in Sutherland or Caithness, in Ross and Cromarty or in the Outer Hebrides, do not feel that the industrial heart of Scotland has overridden all their considerations and that they will not get a fair crack of the whip.
This point is worth considering because as long as we are dealing, as we have dealt in the past, with a United Kingdom Parliament there is an affinity between people in the Highlands, in Wales or on Dartmoor with people in certain other parts of the country. The rural parts of England and Wales can combine with the more rural parts of Scotland to put forward the rural case. It would be a mistake to ignore that consideration.
Yesterday we debated considerations raised by this amendment, but I ask the Minister to carry on a little further from what he said in the winding-up speech last night when he agreed that there was a case for trying to keep down the size of the Assembly. In the light of the amendment to which the Committee has agreed, will he give an assurance about reducing the size of the Assembly below the figures already in the Bill?

Mr. Dalyell: This has become a rather unreal discussion because it is clear that we are not yet certain precisely what kind of Assembly we shall have. Two hours ago the Under-Secretary said that it would be of a one-shift Assembly. He was pressed on how many weeks of the year it would sit. I am not asking whether it will have a 35, 36 or 37-week year. We can, however, ask whether it is envisaged that it will have a 15-week year or a 40-week year. We can also ask to what extent it will be a part-time or a whole-time Assembly. Even with the clear assurance that it is supposed to be whole-time, this will have an effect on the number of Members.
If it were to be a part-time Assembly for other than the Cabinet, the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Scottish Opposition, that would be one thing. If, however, it is to be an Assembly or Parliament in the sense which some hon. Members have been discussing, that is a rather different proposition. Furthermore, before we discuss the issue of numbers we ought to be a little clearer about what will be the functions of the Assembly in relation to local government.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Not under this amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Godman Irvine, I am being perfectly serious. The number of Members which is suggested makes all the difference in the world if it is to be an Assembly based on the existing regions. On the other hand, if it is suggested that the regions should be abolished—which would be one of the first acts of the Assembly—clearly there is a legitimate case for enlarging the number of Assemblymen. But if the argument is that within a decade or less there should be 60 all-purpose local authorities—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is entirely outside the scope of this amendment, which deals with paragraph 6 of Part II of Schedule 1, which states:
Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one parliamentary constituency.

Mr. Dalyell: I understood from what was said by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) that this was a debate about numbers. If I am mistaken about that I must apologise, but I do not think I am mistaken. This is perhaps an example of the whole difficulty that we are under. If we are to have narrow interpretations from the Chair—which is why some of us made such an uncharacteristic fuss at the beginning—one thing will lead to another.
We cannot sensibly discuss numbers unless there is some reference to functions. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) used the analogy of pasture land slipping from one pasture to another. That is precisely the kind of difficulty that we are under unless we are clear about the likely future of the regions.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that I shall not need to remind the hon. Member that we are discussing paragraph 6, which deals with each Assembly constituency. We cannot go further than that.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am persuaded to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on this matter. Are we not discussing, together with this amendment, Amendment No. 511, which seeks to delete paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 1? If so, my hon. Friend

has a point, because paragraph 9 of Part II of the schedule affects the number of Assembly Members.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to wrangle with the Chair, and I accept your ruling, Mr. Godman Irvine. I would only add that we cannot sensibly discuss this issue unless there is a much clearer idea of what is meant by a one-shift Assembly. I cannot see 150 elected Scots Assemblymen and Assemblywomen sticking to one shift. I do not suppose any hon. Member thinks that our loquacity is any less than that of the English. Our experience of the Scottish Grand Committee and our experience over many years late at night in the House does not suggest that we could suddenly confine ourselves to talking from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. I wonder how long the Assembly would remain a one-shift Assembly. I should like an explanation of what is meant by a one-shift Assembly.

Mr. Galbraith: I support the amendment, on two grounds. The first is cost and the second is impartiality.
I take it that the object of the amendment is to reduce the number of Assemblymen roughly by half, and I think that that is admirable. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked how we could decide until we knew what was to be the task and the purpose, how long the Assembly would sit, and the meaning of the curious phrase "one-shift system". I agree with him. But if we want this body to be efficient and not too costly, we do not want it to be a large one.
At present, 71 Members of Parliament and a handful of Ministers do the job of helping to govern Scotland at least as well as the 500 or so Members who represent constituencies in England. The proposal of the Government is to double the number for Scotland and to retain the same number of Scottish Members in the House of Commons. The result will be a total of 220 elected representatives doing exactly the same job as 71 do at the moment. I suggest to the Minister that this is a ridiculous state of affairs, and he has not attempted to justify the reason why the Government have decided that the Assembly shall have about 150 Members. It is too many, and I think that it would be much better if it was reduced, at least to start with to the


present number, with one Assemblyman for each constituency.
But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) pointed out, we have to some extent already undermined that. It is very good that we have. It is very good, for example, that we have undermined it in the constituencies where we have undermined it, because those are the remote constituencies. But the argument that I have pressed again and again is that, if we leave the representation in the Assembly in the way that it is proposed now, with the heavy industrial areas carrying most of the Members, inevitably we shall create in that body a lack of impartiality which does not apply in the House of Commons.
In my view, the process that we have started in Orkney and Shetland should apply to the outlying areas. I should not mind if we had some sort of compromise between my hon. Friend's amendment and that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), with the remote country areas retaining two Assemblymen per constituency and with the more populated, heavy industrialised constituencies, according to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, having one Assemblyman per seat.
However, as it is at least a move in the right direction, I support my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that the Government will think again about numbers, will explain why they have fixed on this number and will also give us some indication of what is meant by "single-shift system".

Mr. Leadbitter: Until a short time ago it was my understanding that the intention was to complete our proceedings as near as possible to 11 o'clock. This idea showed a great deal of common sense, because it put those of us who on Clause 2 were persuaded to divide the Committee on the Question "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" in a reasonable conciliatory mood. But now that we have a state of exuberance on the Treasury Bench, resulting in the decision of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to live on the generosity of the Committee, we find ourselves discussing this very important part of the Bill at this time of night with very few hon. Members in the Chamber.
In fairness to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for the second time, I think that this schedule should have been considered on another day so that we might examine it in detail. We are left in a state of uncertainty. I put it no higher than that. We are seeking the co-operation of the Front Bench. There is indecision with regard to numbers. Indeed, on the basis of a reasoned and proper submission by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) regarding Orkney and Shetland, a wedge has been pushed into the general principles in the Bill.
11.30 p.m.
We had a submission from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian which went to the nub of the whole matter. We cannot arrive at a decision on the schedule if we cannot relate the functions of the Assembly, in terms of time and work, to the numbers required to carry out those functions. The Committee would be prudent to insist that the Government should make clear the time that the Assembly will have to deal with the work involved. Will it be a full-time or a part-time process? We must have information in order to make some evaluation of the numbers required in the Assembly. Only in that way shall we be able to make positive and helpful suggestions to the Government.
At this stage, having dealt with Clause 2, it would be irresponsible of Members to take upon themselves the role of being positively negative or, indeed, destructive. We have reached the stage where we want to make positive contributions on the shape and size of the Assembly. I submit that the Government should enlarge on the brief assertion that there would be some kind of shift system. We do not know what that means. These are pertinent matters. Numbers can be determined only if we have more elucidation about the time scale within which the Assembly is expected to work.

Mr. Graham Page: We are discussing amendments to Part II of Schedule 1. The Boundary Commissions for Scotland and for Wales have a duty to carry out the rules set out in Part II in making their divisions of and setting up the new constituencies. I think that this is the only opportunity that I shall have to ask


a question about the Boundary Commissions. What plans are there for increasing—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman is relating his remarks strictly to Part II and the amendments which are before the Committee, he may do exactly what he is suggesting. Otherwise, that would have to come later.

Mr. Page: I was endeavouring to save time in the debate on the schedule by raising this matter now as it seemed directly related to Part II.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Perhaps I should have assisted the right hon. Gentleman by precisely spelling that out.

Mr. Page: I think that I can keep in order, before being pulled up again, by saying that I am concerned, when considering this group of amendments which relate to Part II, about reducing the number of rules in Part II. Should I agree to those rules being reduced and thereby relieving the Boundary Commissions of some of their duties, or should I say that the Boundary Commissions are capable of carrying out those duties? In order to make a decision on that matter, I was asking about the increase in the personnel of the Boundary Commissions that the Minister has in mind and the programme for carrying out their duties under Part II of the schedule.

Mr. Younger: We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) for producing this group of amendments. They have much the same effect as the group we discussed last night—or, more correctly, this morning; I am not sure of the time.
The most important point that my hon. Friend made, which is a piece of extremely sound advice, is that if we have to err in any particular direction at this stage we should err on the side of making the Assembly slightly too small rather than making it too large. My hon. Friend is right to point out that, whereas it will always be difficult to alter the size of the Assembly after it is set up, it would be infinitely more difficult to reduce the size than to increase it if it were found to be too small.
The Minister very kindly responded to the debate that we had on a similar subject

last night. According to the temporary print of the Official Report that we have at present, he gave an undertaking that if hon. Members could apply their minds to the question of finding a new figure for the Assembly he would consider it carefully. He thought, he said, of a number between 71 and 142.
My hon. Friend has moved the amendment with the purpose of making number 71. His object is to highlight the necessity to keep the size of the Assembly rather smaller than larger. Following our debate last night, I want to make it clear that Opposition Members will do their best to come up with some new suggestions, I hope before Report. Naturally, we shall consult the Minister once we have managed to do some work on the matter.
The Committee generally has given a fairly clear indication, which my hon. Friend's amendments have underlined, that it is the general view that we should try to find a new number somewhere between the number that would result from the amendments and the number now in the Bill.
As well as answering the other points, I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is a matter that we should examine at present and that he will listen sympathetically to any suggestion that we make. I hope the Committee will agree that in that spirit it has been valuable for my hon. Friend to move his amendment.

Mr. John Smith: In a different form and at a different part of the Bill, we are discussing perhaps much the same sort of principle as we were discussing last night, when the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), among others, urged upon the Government the question of a reduction in the size of the Scottish Assembly. I explained carefully to the hon. Gentleman that there are quite serious practical difficulties, but I accepted the spirit of what he intended to do. We shall certainly examine carefully what he said. I repeat again what I said last night. We shall look at this matter, but there are certain practical difficulties. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he would approach the matter taking those practical difficulties into account. We shall see what emerges from that.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) asked me not to shut the door firmly. I have not done so. How far it is open depends upon how far we can reach agreement on the practical difficulties. I hesitate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on anything about parliamentary constituencies or any constituencies, because he has beaten me twice in East Fife. In those circumstances, I am not in a position to challenge any assertions he makes about representation in that part of the country. I am glad to say, however, that people at the other end of the central belt took another view about me.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has examined this matter privately as well as publicly in this Chamber and that he takes it seriously. However, I think that he is raising the same point as the hon. Member for Ayr tried to raise last night, this morning or whenever it was—that we thought that 71 was really too few. It turns on the question of finding an effective Administration, in a situation in which the party which formed the Administration might have to select one out of two of its Members to take part in the Administration. I do not think that there is any right answer to this question. We shall look at it carefully. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that into account in his attitude to the amendment, because it is very much on all fours with the same point as was raised, although in a different context, by the hon. Member for Ayr.
Some other questions were asked—

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has said that perhaps half the Members of the party in power would be taken up in forming the Executive. Does that mean that he thinks the Executive will consist of as many as 20 Members?

Mr. Smith: I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman is in no way entitled to assume that. I wa operating on a supposition put to me by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who put forward the proposition that there might be 18 of the Members on the Executive. I am not able to predict how many Members will be on the Executive. That is a matter for the Assembly. I took the hon. Gentleman's supposition and applied it to a situation in which there was an Assembly

of 71 Members and the majority party had 36 Members. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) listened attentively to the debate in which his hon. Friend spoke about 18 members being on the Executive. It must have slipped momentarily from his mind that that was the context in which we were discussing the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about the Assembly's effect on local government. I profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend. In deciding what is the appropriate membership, we must consider the powers that the Assembly will have. Under the Bill it is not taking powers from local government; it is receiving powers previously exercised by the central Government. The question that my hon. Friend raised about the Assembly's attitude to local government reform are irrelevant to the task before the Committee in deciding what should be the appropriate number.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) also referred to numbers. We shall reflect on the matter as we go through the Bill and consider it in the light of the Assembly's functions.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked how we could decide the number of Members that there should be without knowing precisely the functions that the Assembly will fulfil. That is one of the difficulties that is almost always found when going through a Bill. It is not possible to deal with everything at the same time. We have to deal with one thing at a time. We are now discussing Members and we shall go on to discuss functions. No doubt my hon. Friend will attend assiduously when we consider functions. If he is not asking me probing questions, no doubt he will be asking my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to explain matters if I cannot satisfy him completely. I look forward to the later stages of our consideration in Committee with keen anticipation, but at this stage I think that we might be going rather wide.
I feel that it would be dangerous for me to respond to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). If I did so, I should be going wider than the amendment permits. I am reluctant to do that.
I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, East will be willing to withdraw the amendment in the light of what I said to the hon. Member for Ayr last night.

Sir John Gilmour: I press the Minister of State a little further on the concession that has already been made to allow for a Member for Orkney and a Member for Shetland. As an example I take Ross and Cromarty. Easter Ross is rich agricultural country with completely different circumstances of life and climate from Wester Ross. Although it is possible for someone in Motherwell or Lanark, for example, to represent 40,000 people, 50,000 people or 60,000 people, it is a quite difficult job when there are totally different circumstances between the East and the West Coast. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister of State were to say—I do not ask him for a definite commitment as it is obvious that he is not in a position to give me one—that as the Government have given way in respect of Orkney and Shetland there may be something worth while considering elsewhere.

Mr. John Smith: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the effect of his amendment is not to change the ratio of representation between rural areas and central areas. The Committee's acceptance of the amendment of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) does not increase or reduce the number of Members who will serve in the Assembly; it rather anticipates the decision that the Boundary Commission might have reached.
The hon. Gentleman presses me to say more on this subject. There is no Member of the House of Commons whom I should be happier to oblige in that regard, but I cannot go any further. I thought carefully about what I said to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is asking a little much to ask me to go further.

Sir John Gilmour: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.45 p.m.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: On the advice of yourself, Mr. Godman Irvine, and your assistants, I gather that it is in order to raise one matter.
Am I to understand from, I shall not say the Minister of State's rebuke to me, because it was nicely said—

Mr. John Smith: It was not a rebuke.

Mr. Dalyell: No; I do not pretend that it was. Do I gather from his firm assurance that the Assembly will have nothing to do with local government and that one must not think that it will interfere with local government and take over its functions? If I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, recent reports in the Glasgow Herald and in the Scotsman should be contradicted. There has been a series of reports indicating that the Government were acquiescent in doing away with the regions. We know that the regions, as with any embryo organisation, are unloved. That goes without saying. If, however, we are to do away with the regions, it will be the reverse of devolution, because it will not bring decisions closer to the people. On the contrary, it will centralise them in Edinburgh.
Therefore, it is a matter of some consequence that we should get a clear assurance from the Minister of State that there is no question of the Assembly taking over the functions of the regions. If that is so, it affects the question of the numbers in the Assembly and the time that the Assembly will be working. If it is not to meddle with the regions, it will become far more of a part-time institution than has been built up in the popular mind.
If the Assembly is to have nothing to do with the regions, the description by my hon. Friend the Minister that it would be a one-shift Assembly was apt. This will have an effect on the matter of numbers. Indeed, it will determine to some extent the number of weeks that it is likely to sit. If it is to be a 10 a.m. till 6 p.m. set-up, this will have an effect on those who do not live within striking distance of Edinburgh. All the problems


that arise in the House of Commons will arise in Edinburgh. We know of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs Short) and others that the House should cease its activities at 7 or 8 p.m. It would have a considerable effect on the structure of the institution.
Therefore, am I correct in understanding my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say, by implication, that the recent reports in the Glasgow Herald and in the Scotsman that the Government will acquiesce in letting the Assemblies do away with the regions and that we shall have another mammoth reform of local government are without foundation?

Mr. John Smith: I do not say things "by implication". Either I say them or I do not say them. Everything I say is subject to interpretation by anyone. However, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) puts a strange interpretation on it.
I said that the powers given to the Assembly in the Bill were formerly exercised by the central Government. In the Bill we do not take powers from local government and give them to the Assembly. But the Assembly will have power—it is clearly stated in the Bill—over local government to reform it in any way it chooses. I cannot anticipate what the Assembly will choose to do or the attitudes of political parties or people when they stand for election to the Assembly. My hon. Friend is asking me to perform an impossible task.
The Government have made clear that they have no plans for changing local government in Scotland before the Assembly is set up.

Mr. Brittan: Does the Minister agree that the Assembly has power not merely to reorganise local government but to take to itself some of the powers of local government?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I agree. It is clear on the face of the Bill that that is so.
My hon. Friend was suggesting that there was a plan afoot to change local government. My understanding is that the Government: have no plan before the Assembly is brought into operation to change local government.
All sorts of reports appear in the Glasgow Herald, the Scotsman, the Sun,

the News of the World and other newspapers. With respect to my hon. Friend, I am not in business to comment on what appears in newspapers. If my hon. Friend asks me specific questions I shall answer them, but I do not know to which reports he refers.
The powers are crystal clear. The Assembly has power to reform, change or take powers from local government. That has been clear all along. I can put it no clearer than that.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Bates.]

Committee report Progress: to sit again tomorrow.

PRIVILEGES

Motion made,
That the Recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, in their Report of 1st December 1967 (House of Commons Paper No. 34, 1967–68), be referred to the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Bates.]

Hon. Members: Object.

MODERNA (WITNEY) LTD., MYTHOLMROYD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: The year 1977 has been dubbed the "year of the beaver". Before it started, many people warned of the lost production resulting from the long Christmas and New Year holiday. Large numbers of people never cease arguing that people would rather be employed than unemployed. All this has a bitter ring to the workers at the Moderna blanket manufacturing plant at Mytholmroyd in my constituency, which was bought by Sona Consultants Ltd. in November last year. Within days of the purchase, Sona declared that Moderna was to close and that its 332 employees were to become redundant. Since November the vast majority of the workers have been given no work, and they are reduced to playing


cards, table tennis and dominoes all day long. Orders have not been accepted, work has been put out to sub-contract and raw materials have not been taken in.
Moderna was sold to Sona by Bond Worth Ltd. for an undisclosed sum. It was said by Bond Worth, whose major shareholder is Courtaulds, to be a major loss-maker. Sona is believed to have paid a substantial sum for Moderna.
Since taking over Moderna, Sona has talked about plans to re-equip and reemploy, at some future date, a substantially smaller work force. More recently it has talked about re-employing more employees after re-equipment.
While its plans appear to be uncertain and contradictory, I am advised that Sona has not applied to the Department of Industry, with which it has had two meetings, for any finance to help in re-equipment or reorganisation. Nor has it applied to the Department of Employment for temporary employment subsidy.
Little is known about Sona Consultants Ltd. within the textile industry. The firm was registered in the United Kingdom in 1975, and it has yet to file its first financial accounts. Its three directors—two called Shah and a Mr. Bowe—all live in the same block of flats in Gloucester Road, London, SW7. It has a nominal share capital of £500,000 and has issued just two subscriber shares.
Sona has clear links with Mountain Securities Ltd., which manufactures blankets in Greece, Africa and, it is believed, Italy, and which bid unsuccessfully for Moderna in 1975, when it was bought by Bond Worth. A Mr. S. M. Jaffer, believed to be a former secretary of Sona Consultants, is secretary of Mountain Securities and lives in the same Gloucester Road flats as Messrs. Shah and Bowe. Mr. Bowe is also a director of Pidrap Ltd., which deals in land and property, and a Mr. F. M. Jaffer is secretary of Pidrap Ltd., which was formed in 1975. It has an authorised capital of £100 and has issued £2 of shares. It is known that Sona recently bought another mill in Huddersfield which was in liquidation—Job Beaumont Mills. Its assets are believed to be in the process of disposal.
These matters, coming at a time when there has been mounting concern among

workers about Moderna, have obviously given rise to considerable anxiety and bitterness. Such were the suspicion and fears of Moderna workers that over Christmas and the New Year, assisted by their trade union, the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers, they picketed the gates around the clock for 10 days to ensure that no equipment was removed. Since then the workers, who have set up a Save Moderna Action Committee, have campaigned against the closure, which they believe to be totally unjustified on commercial, economic and social grounds.
The workers' cause has met with considerable local support, including that of the Calderdale District Council and the West Yorkshire County Council, both of which have expressed deep concern at the economic consequences of the closure of Moderna and have highlighted the most serious consequences it would have for efforts being made to try to maintain employment and increase the industrial capacity of the area.
The opposition of Moderna workers to the closure is not only the natural reaction of workers who see their jobs disappearing through forces and events outside their control. It is heightened by their conviction, based on professional judgment and long experience at Moderna, that the firm can be viable and successful within a short period. They certainly believe that it could become profitable within two years, given limited modernisation, competent senior management and a real will to make the undertaking successful and improve its sales performance.
Extremely detailed figures have been presented to Ministers and there has been a series of meetings between the representatives of the action committee, the union and me. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friends in the Departments of Industry, Employment, Trade and Prices and Consumer Protection for readily agreeing to meet me and others to discuss these mattters.
The case presented by the action committee is extremely impressive. It is well argued and well presented, with sales forecasts and financial figures which give a clear impression that, given support, the firm could continue and prosper.
If Moderna closes, it will be followed by other closures which have been announced in the last fortnight and which would add 400,000 further redundancies to the 332 announced at Moderna. That would have a serious impact on local employment. It is difficult to be precise but it has been estimated that if these closures occur unemployment throughout Calderdale will rise by 1 per cent. and that male unemployment in Hebden Bridge will increase to 22 per cent.
Such redundancies would be a hammer blow in an area which in recent years has been grappling with the problems of the decline in the textile industry. I am glad to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), who has done so much over the last three years to bring these matters to the attention of the House. Such redundancies would be a severe blow also to the urgent efforts being made to regenerate the industrial base in West Yorkshire, and Calderdale in particular, and would do nothing to stem the population decline of recent decades.
Moderna workers see no acceptable reason for their firm to close or their jobs to be lost. In the case which it presented to the Minister, the workers' action committee said:
We cannot accept that Sona are intending to close down and reopen the company at a later date. One wonders how a company with an authorised capital of £500,000 can afford to pay a reputed packet for a company having the debts which exist at Moderna. One further wonders how a company in the textile trade, reputed for its competitiveness, can contemplate running an order book down to nil and opening again in the hope of regaining its lost markets. We are convinced this is some financial exercise best known to the architects, whoever they may be.
Moderna workers have been striving to persuade the Sona management to change its mind about the closure and the wholesale redundancies, or, if that is impossible, to sell to enable production to be continued and employment to be safeguarded.
I suggest the possibility of the National Enterprise Board coming together with the local authorities at district and/or county level in a joint venture to continue production in a bid to protect employment—a vital rôle of the NEB. I understand that the Calderdale District Council is closely involved in negotiations to

acquire the plant of another firm in my constituency which is faced with closure. This presents a good opportunity for the NEB to become involved with the local authority. This is something which should receive the most urgent attention of Ministers to see whether a joint venture approach is possible with Moderna.
Moderna workers fear that if the plant closes in March, when the redundancy notices expire, the firm will never reopen and that high-quality Moderna blankets, known nationally and internationally, will be replaced by imported blankets. They also fear that those blankets will be distributed under the Moderna label nationally and internationally. According to the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, all that is required is, and I quote from a letter from the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection,
a conspicuous indication of the country of manufacture to be shown".
There are fears that the plant, assets and stocks will be sold and that the gates of Moderna will never reopen, certainly not for manufacturing purposes. The inability of trade union and employees' representatives to obtain information from Sona representatives since they acquired the firm in November last year is particularly worrying. Questions about the future, the present, and the financial position of the company have gone largely unanswered. This has done nothing to allay the great anxieties in the minds of workers.
As the days pass and March draws nearer, Moderna workers and their families are becoming more anxious about the future. They are looking for clear commitments and answers. They are looking to the Government for action, because they believe that their problems today are other workers' problems tomorrow. They realise that only by Government intervention can employment be protected and industrial capacity and manufacturing industry be increased in order to create wealth and prosperity for the nation.
A number of questions have been put to me by the workers and trade union representatives, and I put them to my hon. Friend the Minister. Does he believe that the Government have the power to intervene in this situation? It is an extremely complicated situation made more complex by financial considerations,


by matters of United Kingdom company registration and by historical circumstances. Will the Minister spell out in detail the powers that his Department has to intervene? Will he press the National Enterprise Board and the local authorities to get together as a matter of urgency to persuade Sona to sell?
What can the Government do to stop this long-established firm from dying and its workers from increasing the numbers on the unemployment scrap-heap? There are those who think that industrial democracy is a cosy academic subjectan industrial chess game. But Moderna is a living argument for workers being given greater powers to determine their industrial destinies and their own livelihoods. Moderna is what the debate on industrial democracy is all about. The workers see themselves as innocent victims of takeovers, financial manoeuvrings and four managing directors of the firm. When they ask questions they are given the run-around. This is industrial reality in my constituency and, I am sure, in many other constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. We on this side of the House are looking to industrial democracy to reverse the balance of power which has been weighted in favour of owners and managers for too long.
The proposed closure of Moderna poses a threat which I hope the Government will overcome. I hope that the Minister will give some information and reassurance about this worrying situation. I believe that this is not a unique state of affairs. In many areas in the country there will be situations which reflect the extremely limited powers of the Government and of the Department of Industry in particular. There are some who would have us believe that those powers are considerable. My experience, having had extensive discussions with four Government Departments, exposes a weakness in industrial relations from the point of view of intervention.
I look forward to the Minister's reply, which I hope will show an appreciation of the weakness of those powers. I hope that there will be better progress towards securing greater powers to enable us to intervene to protect employment in industry.

12.11 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. He has been an excellent example of a Member who has been diligent in putting forward the interests of the working men and women he represents. He is certainly a textbook example of what a Member can do in rasing important issues that affect his constituency.
My hon. Friend raised a number of questions which I shall attempt to answer. He has voiced his disquiet and serious concern about the decision of the new owners of Moderna (Witney) Ltd. to close the factory at Mytholmroyd temporarily and issue redundancy notices to the whole of the work force. These issues concern Government Departments other than my own, and in responding to the matters which my hon. Friend has put before the House I shall have to refer to the powers available to the Departments of Employment, Trade and Prices and Consumer Protection as well as my own under the relevant legislation.
I need to emphasise at the outset that I or my ministerial colleagues can act only in accordance with the statute, and in respect of a number of the actions which my hon. Friend has proposed we might take the Government have no power to act in the way he wishes. For example, we have no power to require the sale of shares in companies registered in the United Kingdom by United Kingdom citizens.
My hon. Friend referred to other impending closures in his constituency. He has written to my Department about all these and the meeting he has asked for will be held as soon as a date has been agreed and these matters can be gone into in detail at that meeting. In all these cases, unfortunately, it is the textile industry which is affected. The textiles and clothing industries have had a very difficult time in 1974 and 1975 and, although there has been some improvement in certain sectors, the situation is still a difficult one in many respects and, therefore, continues to be given serious attention in my Department and by my colleagues in other Government Departments.
Negotiations are currently in train which, we hope, will strengthen the Multi-fibre Arrangement. The Department of Industry and the Department of Trade are taking a lead in this policy.
I wish to concentrate on the immediate organisation of the firm. Ownership of Moderna changed in 1974 and again at the end of November 1976. It was in financial difficulties when it changed hands in 1974, and the situation became worse in 1975 and 1976. Problems existed in most of the textile industry in 1974 and 1975, but in addition the blanket manufacturing sector has been faced by a major change in the demand for its products due to the growing competition from Continental quilts or duvets. This change in consumer choice, many more consumers preferring Continental quilts to blankets, has hit all blanket manufacturers. In addressing ourselves to the problem of Moderna, it is necessary to recognise that there has been some change in demand. There is, in consequence, increased competition between existing manufacturers for a smaller market and continuing competition from quilts. It follows that a manufacturer of blankets has to be highly efficient to be competitive in these conditions, and the future prospects of Moderna will clearly depend on its competitiveness.
The company, in its letter to the dyers' and bleachers' union of 18th January, said:
We feel that the longterm survival of the company is closely associatted with its export success.
The company has thus said what it is aiming to do. It also said in the same letter that
a fully detailed project which is demonstrably viable
is in preparation. Until it has completed it, it is not possible to reach any conclusions, but it seem clear that it is necessary for some changes to take place.
The trade union representatives who visit the Department fully understand that some changes are desirable and have put forward a number of practical ideas to that effect. My hon. Friend mentioned the detailed figures that were presented and the detailed case that was outlined. It was on that basis—a mature, considered survey of the company—that the trade union put forward its claim that the company could be made viable.
There have been consultations with the union concerning redundancies. Under the Employment Protection Act 1975, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a 90-day period of notice, and that is being undertaken at the moment. It is worth mentioning in this context that before the Labour Government came into office and before that Act was passed there was no such protective provision for the arbitrary dismissal of employees.
The company notified the Secretary of State for Employment on 14th December 1976 of its intention to make 332 people redundant between 18th March and 17th June 1977. If the unions concerned are not satisfied with the extent or nature of the consultations under Section 99 of the Employment Protection Act, it is open to them to seek the help of the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and ultimately to complain to an industrial tribunal. There have been meetings between the unions and the company and there has been an exchange of letters. It is for the unions in the light of these exchanges and any future meetings to decide whether or when to call on the help of the ACAS. While that arrangement is in existence, time is moving on and the weeks to the day when the first redundancies will take place are becoming fewer.
A question was raised by my hon. Friend as to whether Moderna was being taken over by foreign interests. There is a clear answer to that. The new owners of Moderna are a company registered in the United Kingdom and the directors of that company are resident in the United Kingdom. The other companies with which the owners of Moderna are said to be associated are also companies registered in the United Kingdom. The Companies Acts do not require directors of companies registered in the United Kingdom to state directorships they may hold in companies not registered in the United Kingdom. The situation as disclosed in the registration details which are kept by the Companies Registration Office therefore do not show that there has been a transfer of control to non-residents.
Concern was expressed by my hon. Friend that a company with an issued capital of two £1 shares can take over a firm, announce its closure and place 300 jobs in the balance. That background can hardly provide reassurance for those who have raised doubts.
My hon. Friend also raised a point about whether the factory might become merely a distribution centre for blankets made elsewhere. The company's letter of 18th January to the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers clearly implies that the factory at Mytholmroyd is intended to manufacture blankets and associated products. As long as a company undertakes activities in accordance within the objects clause of its memorandum, it satisfies the companies legislation. There are no powers under the Industry Act 1972 over a company which changes its activities within the framework of its memorandum. The Industry Act 1972 operates in relation to any assistance given to a company under the various provisions of that Act. Moderna has not received any assistance from my Department. It has not, up to now, made an application for assistance, but it has expressed an intention to do so.
Once an application has been made and assistance is approved, that assistance is given for the specific purposes set out in the application. If for any reason that intended purpose is changed or abandoned, those terms of the assistance come into operation which may provide for repayment of all or part of the assistance in certain circumstances. These provisions ensure that once assistance is given it is used only for its intended purpose, but they do not give me powers to prevent a company from changing its activities or to end an activity in which it is engaged.
That clearly demonstrates the limited nature of the Government's powers in relation to the private sector, contrary to Opposition claims that the Government have too many powers. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends below the Gangway feel strongly that the Government need more powers and that they have too few in their armoury.
The position of the workers has not been enhanced and their confidence in the future has not been improved by

their previous experience when, in January 1976, an announcement was made in not dissimilar circumstances that jobs were safe at two mills. It was said that the company had no intention of closing the remaining Sowerby Bridge, Willow Hall and West End Mills, but on 26th May the Willow Hall and West End Mills were closed. The workers clearly have some justification for looking critically at these matters.
I urge the consultants to carry out as soon as possible their expressed intention of applying to the Department for assistance, bearing in mind the need for the application to be competently made. They have indicated in their letter to the union an intention to manufacture blankets at Mytholmroyd and to start production there.

Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the intention to which he refers is not the basis on which discussions have taken place with his Departrnent? Our information is that, up to now, discussions have taken place on the basis of a different form of production.

Mr. Cryer: A different form of production has been referred to, but the form mentioned in the letter to the union was not excluded when the consultants met the regional representatives and the terms of assistance were explained.
A workers' co-operative would be in the same position as any other applicant as regards assistance under the provisions of the Industry Act 1972. When I met union officials and representatives of the workers' action committee on 13th January, I handed over to them the guidelines which apply to all applicants alike.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.